XMA.TO vs. ZMT.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XMA.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF) and ZMT.TO (BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - XMA.TO is a Materials fund tracking the S&P/TSX Capped Materials TR, while ZMT.TO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Solactive Equal Weight Global Base Metals Index Canadian Dollar Hedged. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMA.TO returned 14.00%/yr vs 17.71%/yr for ZMT.TO. At a 0.50 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XMA.TO charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.61%/yr for ZMT.TO.

Performance

XMA.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF (XMA.TO) and BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) (ZMT.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMA.TO achieves a 7.60% return, which is significantly lower than ZMT.TO's 39.44% return. Over the past 10 years, XMA.TO has underperformed ZMT.TO with an annualized return of 14.00%, while ZMT.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 17.71% annualized return.

XMA.TO

• 1D: -3.13%
• 1M: 5.70%
• YTD: 7.60%
• 6M: 12.34%
• 1Y: 64.71%
• 3Y*: 35.49%
• 5Y*: 20.09%
• 10Y*: 14.00%

ZMT.TO

• 1D: -3.52%
• 1M: 16.19%
• YTD: 39.44%
• 6M: 46.49%
• 1Y: 109.69%
• 3Y*: 42.46%
• 5Y*: 20.69%
• 10Y*: 17.71%

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

XMA.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
XMA.TO iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF	7.60%	99.21%	20.72%	-2.04%	1.35%	3.31%	19.73%	24.63%	-10.46%	7.07%
ZMT.TO BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)	39.44%	63.17%	15.30%	14.54%	-6.65%	11.04%	14.70%	15.82%	-34.17%	37.76%

Correlation

The correlation between XMA.TO and ZMT.TO is 0.53, 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	0.53
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.50
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.57
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2009	0.50

The correlation between XMA.TO and ZMT.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.48 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

XMA.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XMA.TO	ZMT.TO
Basic Materials	98.4%	89.9%
Consumer Cyclical	1.6%	-
Industrials	0.0%	10.1%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	3.7%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

XMA.TO vs. ZMT.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

XMA.TO

XMA.TO Risk / Return Rank: 46
XMA.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
XMA.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
XMA.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 48
XMA.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
XMA.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 42

ZMT.TO

ZMT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 78
ZMT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
ZMT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
ZMT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 73
ZMT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
ZMT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

XMA.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF (XMA.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.

	XMA.TO	ZMT.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.75	2.84	-1.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.11	3.23	-1.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.44	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.41	4.63	-2.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.76	14.58	-7.82
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XMA.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMA.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is lower than the ZMT.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMA.TO and ZMT.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	XMA.TO	ZMT.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.75	2.84	-1.09
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.73	0.62	+0.12
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53	0.53	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.28	0.00	+0.28

Drawdowns

XMA.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMA.TO drawdown since its inception was -64.13%, smaller than the maximum ZMT.TO drawdown of -80.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMA.TO and ZMT.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	XMA.TO	ZMT.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.13%	-80.73%	+16.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.96%	-23.81%	-3.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.96%	-33.28%	+6.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.06%	-41.01%	+7.95%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.06%	-67.51%	+34.45%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.76%	-3.52%	-15.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.31%	-43.15%	+16.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.60%	7.55%	+2.05%

Volatility

XMA.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF (XMA.TO) is 13.42%, while BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) (ZMT.TO) has a volatility of 14.55%. This indicates that XMA.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZMT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XMA.TO	ZMT.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.42%	14.55%	-1.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	30.86%	31.86%	-1.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.08%	38.81%	-1.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.55%	33.74%	-6.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.56%	33.32%	-6.76%

XMA.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMA.TO has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than ZMT.TO's 0.61% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMA.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Dividend Comparison

XMA.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.37%, more than ZMT.TO's 0.15% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
XMA.TO iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF	0.37%	0.41%	0.83%	1.26%	1.24%	0.87%	0.63%	0.62%	0.72%	0.42%	0.82%	1.90%
ZMT.TO BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)	0.15%	0.21%	0.34%	0.87%	1.46%	2.82%	1.03%	2.34%	3.95%	1.29%	1.24%	1.10%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XMA.TO and ZMT.TO in my portfolio?

XMA.TO and ZMT.TO have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XMA.TO or ZMT.TO?

On fees, XMA.TO is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, XMA.TO or ZMT.TO?

XMA.TO is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for ZMT.TO.

What is the main difference between XMA.TO and ZMT.TO?

XMA.TO is categorized as Materials, while ZMT.TO is Energy Equities. XMA.TO tracks S&P/TSX Capped Materials TR, 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: 0.60% for XMA.TO and 0.61% for ZMT.TO.