ZBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ZBAL.TO (BMO Balanced ETF) and FBAL.NEO (Fidelity All-in-One Balanced ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZBAL.TO is a Global Allocation fund actively managed by BMO, while FBAL.NEO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Fidelity. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, ZBAL.TO returned 8.70%/yr vs 10.75%/yr for FBAL.NEO. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ZBAL.TO charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for FBAL.NEO.

Performance

ZBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BMO Balanced ETF (ZBAL.TO) and Fidelity All-in-One Balanced ETF (FBAL.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZBAL.TO achieves a 8.07% return, which is significantly higher than FBAL.NEO's 6.89% return.

ZBAL.TO

• 1D: -0.44%
• 1M: 4.23%
• YTD: 8.07%
• 6M: 7.81%
• 1Y: 19.74%
• 3Y*: 14.66%
• 5Y*: 8.70%
• 10Y*: —

FBAL.NEO

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 2.74%
• YTD: 6.89%
• 6M: 6.75%
• 1Y: 16.29%
• 3Y*: 16.09%
• 5Y*: 10.75%
• 10Y*: —

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

ZBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ZBAL.TO BMO Balanced ETF	8.07%	12.93%	16.16%	12.63%	-11.09%	9.00%
FBAL.NEO Fidelity All-in-One Balanced ETF	6.89%	12.92%	19.42%	13.96%	-7.02%	11.50%

Correlation

The correlation between ZBAL.TO and FBAL.NEO is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.86
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 22, 2021	0.81

The correlation between ZBAL.TO and FBAL.NEO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

ZBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ZBAL.TO	FBAL.NEO
Technology	22.2%	20.6%
Financial Services	19.8%	22.2%
Industrials	11.2%	11.3%
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	7.7%
Energy	8.0%	4.4%
Basic Materials	7.2%	9.7%
Healthcare	6.9%	4.4%
Communication Services	6.7%	4.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	5.5%
Utilities	3.0%	4.6%
Real Estate	2.0%	4.7%

Return for Risk

ZBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZBAL.TO

ZBAL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 72
ZBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
ZBAL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
ZBAL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 74
ZBAL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
ZBAL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 75

FBAL.NEO

FBAL.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 63
FBAL.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
FBAL.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
FBAL.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 68
FBAL.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
FBAL.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

ZBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Balanced ETF (ZBAL.TO) and Fidelity All-in-One Balanced ETF (FBAL.NEO). 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.

	ZBAL.TO	FBAL.NEO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.37	2.17	+0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.44	3.11	+0.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.42	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.41	2.71	+0.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.34	11.32	+3.02
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ZBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.37, which is comparable to the FBAL.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZBAL.TO and FBAL.NEO, 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

	ZBAL.TO	FBAL.NEO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.37	2.17	+0.20
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.01	1.26	-0.25
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.92	1.22	-0.30

Drawdowns

ZBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZBAL.TO drawdown since its inception was -20.75%, which is greater than FBAL.NEO's maximum drawdown of -13.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZBAL.TO and FBAL.NEO.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZBAL.TO	FBAL.NEO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.75%	-13.83%	-6.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.81%	-6.04%	+0.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.43%	-8.29%	-1.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.32%	-13.83%	-2.49%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.44%	-0.45%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.17%	-2.43%	-0.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.38%	1.44%	-0.06%

Volatility

ZBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Volatility Comparison

BMO Balanced ETF (ZBAL.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.09% compared to Fidelity All-in-One Balanced ETF (FBAL.NEO) at 2.78%. This indicates that ZBAL.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FBAL.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZBAL.TO	FBAL.NEO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.09%	2.78%	+0.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.60%	6.08%	+0.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.38%	7.54%	+0.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.72%	8.58%	+0.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.14%	8.57%	+1.57%

ZBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZBAL.TO has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than FBAL.NEO's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Dividend Comparison

ZBAL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.74%, more than FBAL.NEO's 1.51% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FBAL.NEO Fidelity All-in-One Balanced ETF	1.51%	1.61%	1.42%	1.71%	4.48%	1.08%	0.00%	0.00%
ZBAL.TO BMO Balanced ETF	1.74%	2.00%	2.20%	2.49%	2.74%	2.37%	2.55%	2.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZBAL.TO and FBAL.NEO in my portfolio?

ZBAL.TO and FBAL.NEO have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ZBAL.TO or FBAL.NEO?

On fees, ZBAL.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, ZBAL.TO or FBAL.NEO?

ZBAL.TO is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for FBAL.NEO.

What is the main difference between ZBAL.TO and FBAL.NEO?

ZBAL.TO is categorized as Global Allocation, while FBAL.NEO is Diversified Portfolio. They also come from different issuers: BMO and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for ZBAL.TO and 0.40% for FBAL.NEO.