ZAG.TO vs. CBIL.TO
ZAG.TO (BMO Aggregate Bond Index ETF) and CBIL.TO (Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF) are both Canadian Government Bonds funds. ZAG.TO is passively managed, while CBIL.TO is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ZAG.TO returned 4.31%/yr vs 3.63%/yr for CBIL.TO. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZAG.TO charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for CBIL.TO.
Performance
ZAG.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ZAG.TO achieves a 1.70% return, which is significantly higher than CBIL.TO's 0.87% return.
ZAG.TO
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 1.82%
- YTD
- 1.70%
- 6M
- 1.18%
- 1Y
- 2.95%
- 3Y*
- 4.31%
- 5Y*
- 0.76%
- 10Y*
- 1.68%
CBIL.TO
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 0.19%
- YTD
- 0.87%
- 6M
- 1.09%
- 1Y
- 2.35%
- 3Y*
- 3.63%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ZAG.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ZAG.TO BMO Aggregate Bond Index ETF | 1.70% | 2.25% | 4.48% | 3.93% |
CBIL.TO Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF | 0.87% | 2.68% | 4.47% | 3.36% |
Correlation
The correlation between ZAG.TO and CBIL.TO is -0.00, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.00 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.06 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 17, 2023 | 0.06 |
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
ZAG.TO vs. CBIL.TO — Risk / Return Rank
ZAG.TO
CBIL.TO
ZAG.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Aggregate Bond Index ETF (ZAG.TO) and Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CBIL.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.
| ZAG.TO | CBIL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -8.84 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -22.76 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.12 | 5.40 | -4.28 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.06 | 58.99 | -57.93 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.48 | 342.51 | -340.04 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ZAG.TO | CBIL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.67 | 9.50 | -8.84 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.12 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.24 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.45 | 11.65 | -11.19 |
Drawdowns
ZAG.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ZAG.TO drawdown since its inception was -18.03%, which is greater than CBIL.TO's maximum drawdown of -0.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZAG.TO and CBIL.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ZAG.TO | CBIL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -18.03% | -0.06% | -17.97% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.79% | -0.04% | -2.75% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -5.42% | -0.06% | -5.36% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -15.77% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -18.03% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.09% | 0.00% | -1.09% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.54% | -0.00% | -3.54% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.19% | 0.01% | +1.18% |
Volatility
ZAG.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Volatility Comparison
BMO Aggregate Bond Index ETF (ZAG.TO) has a higher volatility of 1.68% compared to Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CBIL.TO) at 0.07%. This indicates that ZAG.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CBIL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ZAG.TO | CBIL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.68% | 0.07% | +1.61% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.43% | 0.19% | +3.24% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.45% | 0.25% | +4.20% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.58% | 0.31% | +6.27% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.11% | 0.31% | +6.80% |
ZAG.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
ZAG.TO has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than CBIL.TO's 0.10% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
ZAG.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Dividend Comparison
ZAG.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.42%, more than CBIL.TO's 2.29% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBIL.TO Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF | 2.29% | 2.59% | 4.38% | 3.39% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
ZAG.TO BMO Aggregate Bond Index ETF | 3.42% | 3.48% | 3.44% | 3.47% | 3.56% | 3.04% | 2.88% | 3.03% | 2.92% | 2.95% | 3.07% | 3.13% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ZAG.TO and CBIL.TO have a correlation of -0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ZAG.TO is cheaper at 0.09% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ZAG.TO is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.10% for CBIL.TO.
They also come from different issuers: BMO and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for ZAG.TO and 0.10% for CBIL.TO.
Find the right allocation for ZAG.TO and CBIL.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