ZEA.TO vs. FCIL.NEO

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

ZEA.TO (BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF) and FCIL.NEO (Fidelity International Low Volatility ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds - ZEA.TO tracks the MSCI EAFE Index while FCIL.NEO tracks the Fidelity Canada International Low Volatility Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ZEA.TO returned 11.38%/yr vs 9.23%/yr for FCIL.NEO. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZEA.TO charges 0.22%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for FCIL.NEO.

Performance

ZEA.TO vs. FCIL.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF (ZEA.TO) and Fidelity International Low Volatility ETF (FCIL.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZEA.TO achieves a 12.12% return, which is significantly higher than FCIL.NEO's 7.11% return.

ZEA.TO

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: -0.25%
• YTD: 12.12%
• 6M: 12.00%
• 1Y: 24.12%
• 3Y*: 19.22%
• 5Y*: 11.38%
• 10Y*: 10.70%

FCIL.NEO

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: -0.03%
• YTD: 7.11%
• 6M: 6.92%
• 1Y: 15.37%
• 3Y*: 14.48%
• 5Y*: 9.23%
• 10Y*: —

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

ZEA.TO vs. FCIL.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ZEA.TO BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF	12.12%	24.92%	11.58%	16.04%	-8.50%	10.66%	5.15%	14.77%
FCIL.NEO Fidelity International Low Volatility ETF	7.11%	21.40%	9.79%	11.49%	-6.83%	7.63%	-0.78%	11.33%

Correlation

The correlation between ZEA.TO and FCIL.NEO is 0.69, 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	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.60
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 18, 2019	0.47

Over the past year, ZEA.TO and FCIL.NEO have become more correlated (0.69) than their long-term average of 0.47, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

ZEA.TO vs. FCIL.NEO — 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: 54
ZEA.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
ZEA.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
ZEA.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 56
ZEA.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
ZEA.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 54

FCIL.NEO

FCIL.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 39
FCIL.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
FCIL.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
FCIL.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 41
FCIL.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
FCIL.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 36

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. FCIL.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF (ZEA.TO) and Fidelity International Low Volatility ETF (FCIL.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.

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.

	ZEA.TO	FCIL.NEO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.67	1.26	+0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.40	1.83	+0.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.24	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.22	1.68	+0.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.56	4.92	+3.63

ZEA.TO vs. FCIL.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZEA.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is higher than the FCIL.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 1.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZEA.TO and FCIL.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.

Drawdowns

ZEA.TO vs. FCIL.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZEA.TO drawdown since its inception was -27.80%, which is greater than FCIL.NEO's maximum drawdown of -20.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZEA.TO and FCIL.NEO.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZEA.TO	FCIL.NEO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.80%	-20.28%	-7.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.91%	-9.17%	-1.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.11%	-9.17%	-4.94%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.66%	-20.28%	-3.38%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-27.80%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.09%	-3.51%	+1.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.61%	-4.46%	-0.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.83%	3.13%	-0.30%

Volatility

ZEA.TO vs. FCIL.NEO - Volatility Comparison

BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF (ZEA.TO) has a higher volatility of 4.91% compared to Fidelity International Low Volatility ETF (FCIL.NEO) at 2.95%. This indicates that ZEA.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FCIL.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZEA.TO	FCIL.NEO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.91%	2.95%	+1.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.41%	9.63%	+2.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.51%	12.23%	+2.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.63%	12.88%	+0.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.79%	13.56%	+1.23%

ZEA.TO vs. FCIL.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZEA.TO has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is lower than FCIL.NEO's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZEA.TO vs. FCIL.NEO - Dividend Comparison

ZEA.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.90%, more than FCIL.NEO's 1.70% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCIL.NEO Fidelity International Low Volatility ETF	1.70%	1.82%	1.74%	1.94%	2.44%	2.53%	3.78%	2.15%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZEA.TO BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF	1.90%	2.17%	2.78%	3.02%	3.08%	2.49%	2.74%	2.95%	3.05%	2.40%	2.80%	2.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

ZEA.TO and FCIL.NEO have a correlation of 0.69, 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 FCIL.NEO?

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 FCIL.NEO?

ZEA.TO is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for FCIL.NEO.

What is the main difference between ZEA.TO and FCIL.NEO?

ZEA.TO tracks MSCI EAFE Index, while FCIL.NEO tracks Fidelity Canada International Low Volatility Index. They also come from different issuers: BMO and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.22% for ZEA.TO and 0.45% for FCIL.NEO.