ZEA.TO vs. CMGG.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

ZEA.TO (BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF) and CMGG.TO (CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund) are both Global Equities funds. ZEA.TO is passively managed, while CMGG.TO is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, ZEA.TO returned 11.18%/yr vs 20.41%/yr for CMGG.TO. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZEA.TO charges 0.22%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for CMGG.TO.

Performance

ZEA.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF (ZEA.TO) and CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZEA.TO achieves a 10.79% return, which is significantly lower than CMGG.TO's 20.49% return.

ZEA.TO

• 1D: 0.72%
• 1M: 4.84%
• YTD: 10.79%
• 6M: 10.55%
• 1Y: 22.50%
• 3Y*: 17.95%
• 5Y*: 11.18%
• 10Y*: 9.90%

CMGG.TO

• 1D: -0.62%
• 1M: 7.39%
• YTD: 20.49%
• 6M: 20.10%
• 1Y: 37.47%
• 3Y*: 34.84%
• 5Y*: 20.41%
• 10Y*: —

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

ZEA.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ZEA.TO BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF	10.79%	24.28%	11.56%	16.02%	-8.51%	7.54%
CMGG.TO CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund	20.49%	21.00%	52.95%	24.21%	-21.16%	11.08%

Correlation

The correlation between ZEA.TO and CMGG.TO is 0.62, 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	0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.49
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 13, 2021	0.40

Over the past year, ZEA.TO and CMGG.TO have become more correlated (0.62) than their long-term average of 0.40, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

ZEA.TO vs. CMGG.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZEA.TO

ZEA.TO Risk / Return Rank: 47
ZEA.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
ZEA.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
ZEA.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 49
ZEA.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
ZEA.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 49

CMGG.TO

CMGG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 68
CMGG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
CMGG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
CMGG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 66
CMGG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
CMGG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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.

ZEA.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF (ZEA.TO) and CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.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.

	ZEA.TO	CMGG.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.62	2.28	-0.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.32	3.04	-0.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.39	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.07	3.71	-1.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.07	10.38	-2.31
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ZEA.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZEA.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.62, which is comparable to the CMGG.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZEA.TO and CMGG.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

	ZEA.TO	CMGG.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.62	2.28	-0.65
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83	1.13	-0.29
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.67	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.60	0.97	-0.37

Drawdowns

ZEA.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZEA.TO drawdown since its inception was -27.80%, roughly equal to the maximum CMGG.TO drawdown of -29.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZEA.TO and CMGG.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZEA.TO	CMGG.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.80%	-29.00%	+1.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.91%	-10.15%	-0.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.11%	-22.85%	+8.74%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.67%	-29.00%	+5.33%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-27.80%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.43%	-0.62%	-0.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.63%	-8.90%	+4.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.79%	3.62%	-0.83%

Volatility

ZEA.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF (ZEA.TO) is 5.56%, while CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.TO) has a volatility of 6.37%. This indicates that ZEA.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMGG.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZEA.TO	CMGG.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.56%	6.37%	-0.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.70%	12.96%	-1.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.93%	16.54%	-2.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.51%	18.22%	-4.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.92%	18.48%	-3.56%

ZEA.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZEA.TO has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is lower than CMGG.TO's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZEA.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Dividend Comparison

ZEA.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.92%, while CMGG.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CMGG.TO CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZEA.TO BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF	1.92%	2.17%	2.77%	3.00%	3.06%	2.48%	2.72%	2.93%	3.03%	2.39%	2.78%	2.42%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZEA.TO and CMGG.TO in my portfolio?

ZEA.TO and CMGG.TO have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ZEA.TO or CMGG.TO?

On fees, ZEA.TO is cheaper at 0.22% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZEA.TO or CMGG.TO?

ZEA.TO is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for CMGG.TO.

What is the main difference between ZEA.TO and CMGG.TO?

They also come from different issuers: BMO and CI Global Asset Management. Their fees differ too: 0.22% for ZEA.TO and 0.90% for CMGG.TO.