ZEB.TO vs. ZBAL.TO

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

ZEB.TO (BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF) and ZBAL.TO (BMO Balanced ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZEB.TO is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks Index, while ZBAL.TO is a Global Allocation fund actively managed by BMO. ZEB.TO is passively managed, while ZBAL.TO is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, ZEB.TO returned 18.84%/yr vs -13.02%/yr for ZBAL.TO. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ZEB.TO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for ZBAL.TO.

Performance

ZEB.TO vs. ZBAL.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 BMO Balanced ETF (ZBAL.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZEB.TO achieves a 21.69% return, which is significantly higher than ZBAL.TO's 6.78% return.

ZEB.TO

• 1D: 0.59%
• 1M: 5.70%
• YTD: 21.69%
• 6M: 24.57%
• 1Y: 62.87%
• 3Y*: 33.95%
• 5Y*: 18.84%
• 10Y*: 16.09%

ZBAL.TO

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.89%
• YTD: 6.78%
• 6M: 7.25%
• 1Y: -60.63%
• 3Y*: -20.69%
• 5Y*: -13.02%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ZEB.TO BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF	21.69%	43.43%	24.58%	10.87%	-10.38%	39.38%	3.52%	4.90%
ZBAL.TO BMO Balanced ETF	6.78%	-62.36%	16.15%	12.61%	-11.11%	10.39%	10.25%	9.71%

Correlation

The correlation between ZEB.TO and ZBAL.TO is 0.60, 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	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.63
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2019	0.60

The correlation between ZEB.TO and ZBAL.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	ZEB.TO	ZBAL.TO
Financial Services	100.0%	19.8%
Basic Materials	-	7.4%
Communication Services	-	6.8%
Consumer Cyclical	-	8.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.7%
Energy	-	7.4%
Healthcare	-	6.9%
Industrials	-	11.2%
Real Estate	-	2.0%
Technology	-	22.5%
Utilities	-	2.9%

Return for Risk

ZEB.TO vs. ZBAL.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: 97
ZEB.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
ZEB.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
ZEB.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 97
ZEB.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
ZEB.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 96

ZBAL.TO

ZBAL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 2
ZBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
ZBAL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
ZBAL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 0
ZBAL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
ZBAL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 5

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. ZBAL.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 BMO Balanced ETF (ZBAL.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.TO	ZBAL.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.97	-0.90	+5.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	6.76	-0.75	+7.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.93	0.54	+1.39
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.49	-0.91	+8.40
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	32.20	-1.01	+33.21
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. ZBAL.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZEB.TO Sharpe Ratio is 4.97, which is higher than the ZBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio of -0.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZEB.TO and ZBAL.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

	ZEB.TO	ZBAL.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.97	-0.90	+5.87
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.40	-0.42	+1.82
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.96	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.89	-0.24	+1.13

Drawdowns

ZEB.TO vs. ZBAL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZEB.TO drawdown since its inception was -39.69%, smaller than the maximum ZBAL.TO drawdown of -66.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZEB.TO and ZBAL.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZEB.TO	ZBAL.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.69%	-66.71%	+27.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.44%	-66.71%	+58.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.80%	-66.71%	+51.91%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.97%	-66.71%	+40.74%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.69%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-61.55%	+61.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.65%	-10.82%	+5.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.96%	59.97%	-58.01%

Volatility

ZEB.TO vs. ZBAL.TO - Volatility Comparison

BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.TO) has a higher volatility of 4.62% compared to BMO Balanced ETF (ZBAL.TO) at 3.29%. This indicates that ZEB.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZBAL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZEB.TO	ZBAL.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.62%	3.29%	+1.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.04%	6.79%	+4.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.74%	67.36%	-54.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.53%	31.12%	-17.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.91%	26.70%	-9.79%

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

ZEB.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than ZBAL.TO's 0.18% 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. ZBAL.TO - Dividend Comparison

ZEB.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.48%, less than ZBAL.TO's 2.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ZBAL.TO BMO Balanced ETF	2.68%	3.97%	2.18%	2.48%	2.72%	2.35%	2.53%	2.38%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZEB.TO BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF	2.48%	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

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

ZEB.TO and ZBAL.TO have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ZEB.TO or ZBAL.TO?

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, ZEB.TO or ZBAL.TO?

ZBAL.TO is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for ZEB.TO.

What is the main difference between ZEB.TO and ZBAL.TO?

ZEB.TO is categorized as Financials Equities, while ZBAL.TO is Global Allocation. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for ZEB.TO and 0.18% for ZBAL.TO.