XETM.TO vs. ZMT.TO
XETM.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Energy Transition Materials Index ETF) and ZMT.TO (BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)) are both Materials funds - XETM.TO tracks the S&P/TSX Energy Transition Materials Index while ZMT.TO tracks the Solactive Equal Weight Global Base Metals Index Canadian Dollar Hedged. Both are passively managed. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XETM.TO charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.61%/yr for ZMT.TO.
Performance
XETM.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
XETM.TO
- 1D
- -4.74%
- 1M
- -2.13%
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ZMT.TO
- 1D
- -3.72%
- 1M
- -1.01%
- YTD
- 24.75%
- 6M
- 23.80%
- 1Y
- 85.17%
- 3Y*
- 35.09%
- 5Y*
- 19.61%
- 10Y*
- 15.85%
XETM.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
XETM.TO iShares S&P/TSX Energy Transition Materials Index ETF | -4.36% |
ZMT.TO BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) | 7.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between XETM.TO and ZMT.TO is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 20, 2026 | 0.93 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
XETM.TO vs. ZMT.TO — Risk / Return Rank
XETM.TO
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
ZMT.TO
XETM.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P/TSX Energy Transition Materials Index ETF (XETM.TO) and BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) (ZMT.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.
| XETM.TO | ZMT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.34 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 3.60 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 10.74 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XETM.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XETM.TO drawdown since its inception was -25.13%, smaller than the maximum ZMT.TO drawdown of -82.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XETM.TO and ZMT.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XETM.TO | ZMT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -25.13% | -82.27% | +57.14% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -23.81% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -33.28% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -41.01% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -68.54% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -14.50% | -13.69% | -0.81% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.20% | -45.92% | +36.72% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 7.95% | — |
Volatility
XETM.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XETM.TO | ZMT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 15.54% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 34.05% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 50.11% | 40.97% | +9.14% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 50.11% | 34.18% | +15.93% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 50.11% | 33.48% | +16.63% |
XETM.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
XETM.TO has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than ZMT.TO's 0.61% expense ratio.
Dividends
XETM.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Dividend Comparison
XETM.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ZMT.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.17%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XETM.TO iShares S&P/TSX Energy Transition Materials Index ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
ZMT.TO BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) | 0.17% | 0.21% | 0.34% | 0.87% | 1.46% | 2.82% | 1.03% | 2.34% | 0.79% | 0.26% | 0.25% | 0.22% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.93, XETM.TO and ZMT.TO move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
On fees, XETM.TO is cheaper at 0.59% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XETM.TO is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for ZMT.TO.
XETM.TO tracks S&P/TSX Energy Transition Materials Index, while ZMT.TO tracks Solactive Equal Weight Global Base Metals Index Canadian Dollar Hedged. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for XETM.TO and 0.61% for ZMT.TO.
Find the right allocation for XETM.TO and ZMT.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