PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ZEB.TO vs. XBAL.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ZEB.TO vs. XBAL.TO

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

ZEB.TO (BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF) and XBAL.TO (iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio) are both exchange-traded funds - ZEB.TO is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks Index, while XBAL.TO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by iShares. ZEB.TO is passively managed, while XBAL.TO is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, ZEB.TO returned 16.60%/yr vs 7.66%/yr for XBAL.TO. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ZEB.TO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XBAL.TO.

Performance

ZEB.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.TO) and iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZEB.TO achieves a 25.33% return, which is significantly higher than XBAL.TO's 7.90% return. Over the past 10 years, ZEB.TO has outperformed XBAL.TO with an annualized return of 16.60%, while XBAL.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 7.66% annualized return.

ZEB.TO

1D
1.12%
1M
9.87%
YTD
25.33%
6M
26.07%
1Y
67.94%
3Y*
34.82%
5Y*
19.53%
10Y*
16.60%

XBAL.TO

1D
0.53%
1M
2.14%
YTD
7.90%
6M
6.86%
1Y
17.15%
3Y*
14.22%
5Y*
8.02%
10Y*
7.66%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ZEB.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ZEB.TO
BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF		25.33%43.43%24.58%10.87%-10.38%39.38%3.52%16.06%-8.85%14.26%
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		7.90%11.90%15.80%13.05%-11.16%10.16%10.73%15.34%-2.73%5.55%

Correlation

The correlation between ZEB.TO and XBAL.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

0.64

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.62

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.55

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 26, 2009

0.50

The correlation between ZEB.TO and XBAL.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.50 (all time) to 0.64 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ZEB.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ZEB.TO
XBAL.TO

Financial Services

100.0%
20.5%

Basic Materials

-

7.4%

Communication Services

-

6.4%

Consumer Cyclical

-

8.0%

Consumer Defensive

-

4.6%

Energy

-

7.5%

Healthcare

-

6.6%

Industrials

-

12.4%

Real Estate

-

2.3%

Technology

-

21.6%

Utilities

-

2.9%

Financial Services

ZEB.TO
100.0%
XBAL.TO
20.5%

Basic Materials

ZEB.TO

-

XBAL.TO
7.4%

Communication Services

ZEB.TO

-

XBAL.TO
6.4%

Consumer Cyclical

ZEB.TO

-

XBAL.TO
8.0%

Consumer Defensive

ZEB.TO

-

XBAL.TO
4.6%

Energy

ZEB.TO

-

XBAL.TO
7.5%

Healthcare

ZEB.TO

-

XBAL.TO
6.6%

Industrials

ZEB.TO

-

XBAL.TO
12.4%

Real Estate

ZEB.TO

-

XBAL.TO
2.3%

Technology

ZEB.TO

-

XBAL.TO
21.6%

Utilities

ZEB.TO

-

XBAL.TO
2.9%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF

iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio

Often compared with ZEB.TO:
ZEB.TO vs. ZWB.TOZEB.TO vs. VDY.TOZEB.TO vs. HBNK.TOZEB.TO vs. HCAL.TOZEB.TO vs. HMAX.TOZEB.TO vs. ZSP.TOZEB.TO vs. XIC.TO
Often compared with XBAL.TO:
XBAL.TO vs. XEQT.TOXBAL.TO vs. VBAL.TOXBAL.TO vs. XCNS.TOXBAL.TO vs. XEI.TOXBAL.TO vs. ZBAL.TOXBAL.TO vs. ZLB.TOXBAL.TO vs. GBAL.TO

Return for Risk

ZEB.TO vs. XBAL.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
ZEB.TO
ZEB.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9797
Overall Rank
ZEB.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9898
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9696
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9797
Martin Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO
XBAL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

ZEB.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.TO) and iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.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.

ZEB.TOXBAL.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
5.33
1.97

+3.36

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
7.18
2.76

+4.42

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.99

1.36

+0.62

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

8.09

2.84

+5.25

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

34.80

11.82

+22.98

ZEB.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZEB.TO Sharpe Ratio is 5.33, which is higher than the XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZEB.TO and XBAL.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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

ZEB.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZEB.TO drawdown since its inception was -39.69%, which is greater than XBAL.TO's maximum drawdown of -28.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZEB.TO and XBAL.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ZEB.TOXBAL.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-39.69%

-28.55%

-11.14%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.44%

-6.06%

-2.38%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.80%

-9.34%

-5.46%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.97%

-17.10%

-8.87%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.69%

-20.93%

-18.76%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.36%

+0.36%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.65%

-3.35%

-2.30%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.96%

1.46%

+0.50%

Volatility

ZEB.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Volatility Comparison

BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.TO) has a higher volatility of 4.52% compared to iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO) at 3.49%. This indicates that ZEB.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XBAL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ZEB.TOXBAL.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.52%

3.49%

+1.03%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.13%

7.46%

+3.67%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.81%

8.76%

+4.05%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.55%

8.84%

+4.71%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.90%

9.78%

+7.12%

ZEB.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZEB.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than XBAL.TO's 0.20% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

ZEB.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Dividend Comparison

ZEB.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.41%, more than XBAL.TO's 2.11% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		2.11%2.27%2.72%2.43%2.12%1.78%2.04%2.31%3.47%3.00%3.72%3.38%
ZEB.TO
BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF		2.41%2.95%3.98%4.75%4.29%3.13%4.15%3.65%3.64%3.02%3.19%3.70%

Frequently Asked Questions

ZEB.TO and XBAL.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.

On fees, XBAL.TO is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XBAL.TO is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for ZEB.TO.

ZEB.TO is categorized as Financials Equities, while XBAL.TO is Diversified Portfolio. They also come from different issuers: BMO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for ZEB.TO and 0.20% for XBAL.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ZEB.TO and XBAL.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