PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XBAL.TO vs. ZEB.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XBAL.TO vs. ZEB.TO

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

XBAL.TO (iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio) and ZEB.TO (BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XBAL.TO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by iShares, while ZEB.TO is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks Index. XBAL.TO is actively managed, while ZEB.TO is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XBAL.TO returned 7.66%/yr vs 16.60%/yr for ZEB.TO. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XBAL.TO charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for ZEB.TO.

Performance

XBAL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO) and BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XBAL.TO achieves a 7.90% return, which is significantly lower than ZEB.TO's 25.33% return. Over the past 10 years, XBAL.TO has underperformed ZEB.TO with an annualized return of 7.66%, while ZEB.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 16.60% annualized return.

XBAL.TO

1D
0.53%
1M
2.14%
YTD
7.90%
6M
6.86%
1Y
17.15%
3Y*
14.22%
5Y*
8.02%
10Y*
7.66%

ZEB.TO

1D
1.12%
1M
9.87%
YTD
25.33%
6M
26.07%
1Y
67.94%
3Y*
34.82%
5Y*
19.53%
10Y*
16.60%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XBAL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		7.90%11.90%15.80%13.05%-11.16%10.16%10.73%15.34%-2.73%5.55%
ZEB.TO
BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF		25.33%43.43%24.58%10.87%-10.38%39.38%3.52%16.06%-8.85%14.26%

Correlation

The correlation between XBAL.TO and ZEB.TO is 0.62, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.62

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.64

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.62

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.55

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 26, 2009

0.50

The correlation between XBAL.TO and ZEB.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.50 (all time) to 0.64 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XBAL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XBAL.TO
ZEB.TO

Technology

21.6%

-

Financial Services

20.5%
100.0%

Industrials

12.4%

-

Consumer Cyclical

8.0%

-

Energy

7.5%

-

Basic Materials

7.4%

-

Healthcare

6.6%

-

Communication Services

6.4%

-

Consumer Defensive

4.6%

-

Utilities

2.9%

-

Real Estate

2.3%

-

Technology

XBAL.TO
21.6%
ZEB.TO

-

Financial Services

XBAL.TO
20.5%
ZEB.TO
100.0%

Industrials

XBAL.TO
12.4%
ZEB.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

XBAL.TO
8.0%
ZEB.TO

-

Energy

XBAL.TO
7.5%
ZEB.TO

-

Basic Materials

XBAL.TO
7.4%
ZEB.TO

-

Healthcare

XBAL.TO
6.6%
ZEB.TO

-

Communication Services

XBAL.TO
6.4%
ZEB.TO

-

Consumer Defensive

XBAL.TO
4.6%
ZEB.TO

-

Utilities

XBAL.TO
2.9%
ZEB.TO

-

Real Estate

XBAL.TO
2.3%
ZEB.TO

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio

BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF

Often compared with XBAL.TO:
XBAL.TO vs. XEQT.TOXBAL.TO vs. VBAL.TOXBAL.TO vs. XCNS.TOXBAL.TO vs. XEI.TOXBAL.TO vs. ZBAL.TOXBAL.TO vs. ZLB.TOXBAL.TO vs. GBAL.TO
Often compared with ZEB.TO:
ZEB.TO vs. ZWB.TOZEB.TO vs. VDY.TOZEB.TO vs. HBNK.TOZEB.TO vs. HCAL.TOZEB.TO vs. HMAX.TOZEB.TO vs. ZSP.TOZEB.TO vs. XIC.TO

Return for Risk

XBAL.TO vs. ZEB.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XBAL.TO
XBAL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO
ZEB.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9797
Overall Rank
ZEB.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9898
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9696
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9797
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

XBAL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO) and BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.TO). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

XBAL.TOZEB.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.97
5.33

-3.36

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.76
7.18

-4.42

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.99

-0.62

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.84

8.09

-5.25

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.82

34.80

-22.98

XBAL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.97, which is lower than the ZEB.TO Sharpe Ratio of 5.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XBAL.TO and ZEB.TO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

XBAL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XBAL.TO drawdown since its inception was -28.55%, smaller than the maximum ZEB.TO drawdown of -39.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBAL.TO and ZEB.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XBAL.TOZEB.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.55%

-39.69%

+11.14%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.06%

-8.44%

+2.38%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-9.34%

-14.80%

+5.46%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.10%

-25.97%

+8.87%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-20.93%

-39.69%

+18.76%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.36%

0.00%

-0.36%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.35%

-5.65%

+2.30%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.46%

1.96%

-0.50%

Volatility

XBAL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO) is 3.49%, while BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.TO) has a volatility of 4.52%. This indicates that XBAL.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZEB.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XBAL.TOZEB.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.49%

4.52%

-1.03%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.46%

11.13%

-3.67%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.76%

12.81%

-4.05%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.84%

13.55%

-4.71%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.78%

16.90%

-7.12%

XBAL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XBAL.TO has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than ZEB.TO's 0.25% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

XBAL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Dividend Comparison

XBAL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.11%, less than ZEB.TO's 2.41% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		2.11%2.27%2.72%2.43%2.12%1.78%2.04%2.31%3.47%3.00%3.72%3.38%
ZEB.TO
BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF		2.41%2.95%3.98%4.75%4.29%3.13%4.15%3.65%3.64%3.02%3.19%3.70%

Frequently Asked Questions

XBAL.TO and ZEB.TO have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XBAL.TO is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XBAL.TO is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for ZEB.TO.

XBAL.TO is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while ZEB.TO is Financials Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for XBAL.TO and 0.25% for ZEB.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XBAL.TO and ZEB.TO

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer