XMU.TO vs. ZLB.TO
XMU.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF) and ZLB.TO (BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XMU.TO is a Low Volatility fund tracking the MSCI USA Minimum Volatility Index, while ZLB.TO is a Canada Equities fund actively managed by BMO. XMU.TO is passively managed, while ZLB.TO is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMU.TO returned 8.75%/yr vs 10.37%/yr for ZLB.TO. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XMU.TO charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for ZLB.TO.
Performance
XMU.TO vs. ZLB.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XMU.TO achieves a 6.08% return, which is significantly lower than ZLB.TO's 7.93% return. Over the past 10 years, XMU.TO has underperformed ZLB.TO with an annualized return of 8.75%, while ZLB.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 10.37% annualized return.
XMU.TO
- 1D
- 0.78%
- 1M
- 1.26%
- 6M
- 5.67%
- YTD
- 6.08%
- 1Y
- 4.16%
- 3Y*
- 9.90%
- 5Y*
- 6.81%
- 10Y*
- 8.75%
- ALL TIME*
- 12.73%
ZLB.TO
- 1D
- 0.81%
- 1M
- 0.11%
- 6M
- 6.91%
- YTD
- 7.93%
- 1Y
- 12.19%
- 3Y*
- 15.04%
- 5Y*
- 11.35%
- 10Y*
- 10.37%
- ALL TIME*
- 12.62%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA$203.61K | CA$146.99K | CA$731.35K | |
| CA$3.08M | CA$3.16M | CA$2.92M |
XMU.TO vs. ZLB.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XMU.TO iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF | 6.08% | -0.80% | 22.08% | 6.68% | -3.58% | 17.10% | 3.13% | 20.92% | 9.19% | 10.94% |
ZLB.TO BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF | 7.93% | 20.40% | 15.31% | 9.41% | -0.35% | 22.93% | 1.51% | 21.92% | -2.76% | 11.11% |
Correlation
The correlation between XMU.TO and ZLB.TO is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.49 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.46 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.50 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.54 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 31, 2012 | 0.47 |
The correlation between XMU.TO and ZLB.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.46 to 0.54 - a consistent structural relationship.
XMU.TO vs. ZLB.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XMU.TO
ZLB.TO
Technology
Healthcare
-
Financial Services
Consumer Defensive
Utilities
Industrials
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Energy
Real Estate
Basic Materials
Technology
XMU.TO
ZLB.TO
Healthcare
XMU.TO
ZLB.TO
-
Financial Services
XMU.TO
ZLB.TO
Consumer Defensive
XMU.TO
ZLB.TO
Utilities
XMU.TO
ZLB.TO
Industrials
XMU.TO
ZLB.TO
Consumer Cyclical
XMU.TO
ZLB.TO
Communication Services
XMU.TO
ZLB.TO
Energy
XMU.TO
ZLB.TO
Real Estate
XMU.TO
ZLB.TO
Basic Materials
XMU.TO
ZLB.TO
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
XMU.TO vs. ZLB.TO — Risk / Return Rank
XMU.TO
ZLB.TO
XMU.TO vs. ZLB.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (XMU.TO) and BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF (ZLB.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.
| XMU.TO | ZLB.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.91 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.18 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.08 | 1.24 | -0.16 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.49 | 2.16 | -1.66 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.01 | 6.28 | -5.27 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XMU.TO vs. ZLB.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XMU.TO drawdown since its inception was -27.31%, smaller than the maximum ZLB.TO drawdown of -33.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMU.TO and ZLB.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XMU.TO | ZLB.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -27.31% | -33.96% | +6.65% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.45% | -5.67% | -2.78% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -10.97% | -7.59% | -3.38% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.59% | -13.00% | -7.59% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -27.31% | -33.96% | +6.65% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.39% | -0.91% | -1.48% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.53% | -2.47% | -2.06% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.14% | 1.94% | +2.20% |
Volatility
XMU.TO vs. ZLB.TO - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (XMU.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.73% compared to BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF (ZLB.TO) at 2.09%. This indicates that XMU.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZLB.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XMU.TO | ZLB.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.73% | 2.09% | +1.64% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 6.65% | 6.73% | -0.08% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.45% | 9.37% | +1.08% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.70% | 9.65% | +5.05% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.08% | 12.22% | +4.86% |
XMU.TO vs. ZLB.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
XMU.TO has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is lower than ZLB.TO's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
XMU.TO vs. ZLB.TO - Dividend Comparison
XMU.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.14%, less than ZLB.TO's 1.83% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XMU.TO iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF | 1.14% | 1.13% | 1.19% | 1.41% | 1.17% | 1.09% | 1.72% | 1.47% | 1.51% | 1.63% | 1.87% | 1.46% |
ZLB.TO BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF | 1.83% | 1.99% | 2.37% | 2.67% | 2.66% | 2.39% | 2.83% | 2.44% | 2.76% | 2.55% | 2.94% | 2.34% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XMU.TO and ZLB.TO have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, XMU.TO is cheaper at 0.33% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XMU.TO is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for ZLB.TO.
XMU.TO is categorized as Low Volatility, while ZLB.TO is Canada Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for XMU.TO and 0.39% for ZLB.TO.
Find the right allocation for XMU.TO and ZLB.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