PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XBAL.TO vs. ZESG.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XBAL.TO (iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio) and ZESG.TO (BMO Balanced ESG ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, XBAL.TO returned 8.15%/yr vs 8.63%/yr for ZESG.TO. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XBAL.TO charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for ZESG.TO.

Performance

XBAL.TO vs. ZESG.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 Balanced ESG ETF (ZESG.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 7.81% return, which is significantly higher than ZESG.TO's 5.54% return.

XBAL.TO

1D
-0.36%
1M
4.13%
YTD
7.81%
6M
6.00%
1Y
17.48%
3Y*
14.21%
5Y*
8.15%
10Y*
7.69%

ZESG.TO

1D
-0.47%
1M
3.78%
YTD
5.54%
6M
5.01%
1Y
16.52%
3Y*
14.52%
5Y*
8.63%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		7.81%11.87%15.76%13.01%-11.19%10.11%7.75%
ZESG.TO
BMO Balanced ESG ETF		5.54%12.26%16.70%15.27%-13.70%13.20%7.69%

Correlation

The correlation between XBAL.TO and ZESG.TO is 0.79, 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

0.79

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

0.62

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

0.59

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2020

0.54

Over the past year, XBAL.TO and ZESG.TO have become more correlated (0.79) than their long-term average of 0.54, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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

Sectors
XBAL.TO
ZESG.TO

Technology

21.6%
24.7%

Financial Services

20.5%
19.7%

Industrials

12.4%
10.1%

Consumer Cyclical

8.0%
6.8%

Energy

7.5%
5.8%

Basic Materials

7.4%
6.6%

Healthcare

6.6%
8.4%

Communication Services

6.4%
8.5%

Consumer Defensive

4.6%
5.4%

Utilities

2.9%
2.3%

Real Estate

2.3%
1.8%

Technology

XBAL.TO
21.6%
ZESG.TO
24.7%

Financial Services

XBAL.TO
20.5%
ZESG.TO
19.7%

Industrials

XBAL.TO
12.4%
ZESG.TO
10.1%

Consumer Cyclical

XBAL.TO
8.0%
ZESG.TO
6.8%

Energy

XBAL.TO
7.5%
ZESG.TO
5.8%

Basic Materials

XBAL.TO
7.4%
ZESG.TO
6.6%

Healthcare

XBAL.TO
6.6%
ZESG.TO
8.4%

Communication Services

XBAL.TO
6.4%
ZESG.TO
8.5%

Consumer Defensive

XBAL.TO
4.6%
ZESG.TO
5.4%

Utilities

XBAL.TO
2.9%
ZESG.TO
2.3%

Real Estate

XBAL.TO
2.3%
ZESG.TO
1.8%

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 Balanced ESG 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 ZESG.TO:
ZESG.TO vs. HBAL.TOZESG.TO vs. PYF.TOZESG.TO vs. TCON.TOZESG.TO vs. VBAL.TOZESG.TO vs. XTR.TOZESG.TO vs. MIX.TOZESG.TO vs. VRIF.TO

Return for Risk

XBAL.TO vs. ZESG.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: 6161
Overall Rank
XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank
ZESG.TO
ZESG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6363
Overall Rank
ZESG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZESG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6868
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZESG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
ZESG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZESG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
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. ZESG.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 Balanced ESG ETF (ZESG.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.

XBAL.TOZESG.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.06
2.11

-0.05

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.87
3.09

-0.22

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.39

1.39

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.89

2.72

+0.17

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.15

11.38

+0.77

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is comparable to the ZESG.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XBAL.TO and ZESG.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

XBAL.TOZESG.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.06

2.11

-0.05

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.93

0.97

-0.04

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.82

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.68

0.86

-0.18

Drawdowns

XBAL.TO vs. ZESG.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XBAL.TO drawdown since its inception was -28.83%, which is greater than ZESG.TO's maximum drawdown of -19.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBAL.TO and ZESG.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XBAL.TOZESG.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.83%

-19.68%

-9.15%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.06%

-6.09%

+0.03%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-9.35%

-10.28%

+0.93%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.12%

-18.81%

+1.69%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-20.93%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.36%

-0.47%

+0.11%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.39%

-4.19%

+0.80%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.44%

1.45%

-0.01%

Volatility

XBAL.TO vs. ZESG.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.14% compared to BMO Balanced ESG ETF (ZESG.TO) at 2.58%. This indicates that XBAL.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZESG.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XBAL.TOZESG.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.14%

2.58%

+0.56%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.21%

6.21%

+1.00%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.51%

7.85%

+0.66%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.79%

8.92%

-0.13%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.37%

9.92%

-0.55%

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

XBAL.TO has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than ZESG.TO's 0.18% expense ratio. However, 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. ZESG.TO - Dividend Comparison

XBAL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.10%, more than ZESG.TO's 1.66% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		2.10%2.24%2.68%2.40%2.09%1.74%1.99%2.26%3.39%2.93%3.64%3.29%
ZESG.TO
BMO Balanced ESG ETF		1.66%1.71%1.89%2.22%2.53%2.05%2.27%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

XBAL.TO and ZESG.TO have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ZESG.TO is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ZESG.TO is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for XBAL.TO.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for XBAL.TO and 0.18% for ZESG.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XBAL.TO and ZESG.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