PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

ZEB.TO vs. XMA.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ZEB.TO (BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF) and XMA.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZEB.TO is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks Index, while XMA.TO is a Materials fund tracking the S&P/TSX Capped Materials TR. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ZEB.TO returned 15.82%/yr vs 14.00%/yr for XMA.TO. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZEB.TO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for XMA.TO.

Performance

ZEB.TO vs. XMA.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 S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF (XMA.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 19.22% return, which is significantly higher than XMA.TO's 7.60% return. Over the past 10 years, ZEB.TO has outperformed XMA.TO with an annualized return of 15.82%, while XMA.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 14.00% annualized return.

ZEB.TO

1D
-0.43%
1M
5.51%
YTD
19.22%
6M
24.72%
1Y
60.22%
3Y*
32.73%
5Y*
18.18%
10Y*
15.82%

XMA.TO

1D
-3.13%
1M
5.70%
YTD
7.60%
6M
12.34%
1Y
64.71%
3Y*
35.49%
5Y*
20.09%
10Y*
14.00%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ZEB.TO
BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF		19.22%43.43%24.58%10.87%-10.38%39.38%3.52%16.06%-8.85%14.26%
XMA.TO
iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF		7.60%99.21%20.72%-2.04%1.35%3.31%19.73%24.63%-10.46%7.07%

Correlation

The correlation between ZEB.TO and XMA.TO is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.33

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.35

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

0.34

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

0.21

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2009

0.22

The correlation between ZEB.TO and XMA.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.21 (10 years) to 0.35 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors
ZEB.TO
XMA.TO

Financial Services

100.0%

-

Basic Materials

-

98.4%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

1.6%

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

0.0%

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

ZEB.TO
100.0%
XMA.TO

-

Basic Materials

ZEB.TO

-

XMA.TO
98.4%

Communication Services

ZEB.TO

-

XMA.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

ZEB.TO

-

XMA.TO
1.6%

Consumer Defensive

ZEB.TO

-

XMA.TO

-

Energy

ZEB.TO

-

XMA.TO

-

Healthcare

ZEB.TO

-

XMA.TO

-

Industrials

ZEB.TO

-

XMA.TO
0.0%

Real Estate

ZEB.TO

-

XMA.TO

-

Technology

ZEB.TO

-

XMA.TO

-

Utilities

ZEB.TO

-

XMA.TO

-

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 S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF

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 XMA.TO:
XMA.TO vs. XGD.TOXMA.TO vs. XETM.TOXMA.TO vs. XIC.TOXMA.TO vs. ZUT.TOXMA.TO vs. XIT.TOXMA.TO vs. XEQT.TOXMA.TO vs. XBM.TO

Return for Risk

ZEB.TO vs. XMA.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: 9696
Overall Rank
ZEB.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9797
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9797
Omega Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9595
Martin Ratio Rank
XMA.TO
XMA.TO Risk / Return Rank: 4646
Overall Rank
XMA.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5050
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMA.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4141
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMA.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 4848
Omega Ratio Rank
XMA.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4848
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMA.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 4242
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. XMA.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 S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF (XMA.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.

ZEB.TOXMA.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
4.79
1.75

+3.04

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
6.54
2.11

+4.43

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.90

1.31

+0.59

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

7.17

2.41

+4.76

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

30.84

6.76

+24.08

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current ZEB.TO Sharpe Ratio is 4.79, which is higher than the XMA.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZEB.TO and XMA.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

ZEB.TOXMA.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.79

1.75

+3.04

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.35

0.73

+0.62

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.94

0.53

+0.41

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.88

0.28

+0.60

Drawdowns

ZEB.TO vs. XMA.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZEB.TO drawdown since its inception was -39.69%, smaller than the maximum XMA.TO drawdown of -64.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZEB.TO and XMA.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ZEB.TOXMA.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-39.69%

-64.13%

+24.44%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.44%

-26.96%

+18.52%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.80%

-26.96%

+12.16%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.97%

-33.06%

+7.09%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.69%

-33.06%

-6.63%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.00%

-18.76%

+16.76%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.65%

-26.31%

+20.66%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.96%

9.60%

-7.64%

Volatility

ZEB.TO vs. XMA.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.TO) is 4.89%, while iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF (XMA.TO) has a volatility of 13.42%. This indicates that ZEB.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XMA.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ZEB.TOXMA.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.89%

13.42%

-8.53%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.14%

30.86%

-19.72%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.62%

37.08%

-24.46%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.52%

27.55%

-14.03%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.91%

26.56%

-9.65%

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

ZEB.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than XMA.TO's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZEB.TO vs. XMA.TO - Dividend Comparison

ZEB.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.54%, more than XMA.TO's 0.37% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
XMA.TO
iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF		0.37%0.41%0.83%1.26%1.24%0.87%0.63%0.62%0.72%0.42%0.82%1.90%
ZEB.TO
BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF		2.54%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 XMA.TO have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ZEB.TO is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ZEB.TO is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for XMA.TO.

ZEB.TO is categorized as Financials Equities, while XMA.TO is Materials. ZEB.TO tracks Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks Index, while XMA.TO tracks S&P/TSX Capped Materials TR. They also come from different issuers: BMO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for ZEB.TO and 0.60% for XMA.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ZEB.TO and XMA.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