XBAL.TO vs. ZGRO.TO

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

XBAL.TO (iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio) and ZGRO.TO (BMO Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XBAL.TO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by iShares, while ZGRO.TO is a Global Allocation fund actively managed by BMO. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, XBAL.TO returned 7.99%/yr vs 15.61%/yr for ZGRO.TO. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XBAL.TO charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for ZGRO.TO.

Performance

XBAL.TO vs. ZGRO.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 Growth ETF (ZGRO.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XBAL.TO achieves a 8.27% return, which is significantly lower than ZGRO.TO's 10.93% return.

XBAL.TO

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 8.27%
• 6M: 6.33%
• 1Y: 16.60%
• 3Y*: 14.84%
• 5Y*: 7.99%
• 10Y*: 7.81%

ZGRO.TO

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.16%
• YTD: 10.93%
• 6M: 10.40%
• 1Y: 25.31%
• 3Y*: 23.01%
• 5Y*: 15.61%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
XBAL.TO iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio	8.27%	11.90%	15.80%	13.05%	-11.16%	10.16%	10.73%	9.78%
ZGRO.TO BMO Growth ETF	10.93%	18.65%	25.70%	20.36%	-5.92%	20.50%	17.11%	16.29%

Correlation

The correlation between XBAL.TO and ZGRO.TO is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 15, 2019	0.89

The correlation between XBAL.TO and ZGRO.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

XBAL.TO vs. ZGRO.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: 63
XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
XBAL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
XBAL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 63
XBAL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
XBAL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 68

ZGRO.TO

ZGRO.TO Risk / Return Rank: 78
ZGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
ZGRO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
ZGRO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 76
ZGRO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
ZGRO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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. ZGRO.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 Growth ETF (ZGRO.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.TO	ZGRO.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.82	2.15	-0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.56	3.03	-0.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.40	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.75	3.70	-0.95
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.26	14.49	-3.23

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

The current XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.82, which is comparable to the ZGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XBAL.TO and ZGRO.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.

Drawdowns

XBAL.TO vs. ZGRO.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XBAL.TO drawdown since its inception was -28.55%, which is greater than ZGRO.TO's maximum drawdown of -24.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBAL.TO and ZGRO.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	XBAL.TO	ZGRO.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.55%	-24.67%	-3.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.06%	-6.87%	+0.81%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.34%	-11.60%	+2.26%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.10%	-16.21%	-0.89%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-20.93%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.60%	-2.43%	-0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.35%	-2.49%	-0.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.48%	1.75%	-0.27%

Volatility

XBAL.TO vs. ZGRO.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO) is 3.86%, while BMO Growth ETF (ZGRO.TO) has a volatility of 5.05%. This indicates that XBAL.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZGRO.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XBAL.TO	ZGRO.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.86%	5.05%	-1.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.99%	9.91%	-1.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.18%	11.83%	-2.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.94%	11.18%	-2.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.80%	13.19%	-3.39%

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

XBAL.TO has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than ZGRO.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. ZGRO.TO - Dividend Comparison

XBAL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.10%, less than ZGRO.TO's 2.24% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
XBAL.TO iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio	2.10%	2.27%	2.72%	2.43%	2.12%	1.78%	2.04%	2.31%	3.47%	3.00%	3.72%	3.38%
ZGRO.TO BMO Growth ETF	2.24%	3.38%	5.76%	6.81%	7.63%	6.65%	7.47%	6.95%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XBAL.TO and ZGRO.TO in my portfolio?

XBAL.TO and ZGRO.TO have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XBAL.TO or ZGRO.TO?

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

Which ETF is cheaper, XBAL.TO or ZGRO.TO?

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

What is the main difference between XBAL.TO and ZGRO.TO?

XBAL.TO is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while ZGRO.TO is Global Allocation. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for XBAL.TO and 0.18% for ZGRO.TO.