ZFH.TO vs. NHYB
ZFH.TO (BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF) and NHYB (Nuveen High Yield Corporate Bond ETF) are both High Yield Bonds funds. ZFH.TO is actively managed, while NHYB is passively managed. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. ZFH.TO charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for NHYB.
Performance
ZFH.TO vs. NHYB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
ZFH.TO is traded in CAD, while NHYB is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the NHYB values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ZFH.TO achieves a 2.58% return, which is significantly lower than NHYB's 5.57% return.
ZFH.TO
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.26%
- 6M
- 1.97%
- YTD
- 2.58%
- 1Y
- 4.55%
- 3Y*
- 8.89%
- 5Y*
- 6.65%
- 10Y*
- 5.48%
NHYB
- 1D
- 0.14%
- 1M
- 1.53%
- 6M
- 3.86%
- YTD
- 5.57%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ZFH.TO vs. NHYB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ZFH.TO BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF | 2.58% | 0.25% |
NHYB Nuveen High Yield Corporate Bond ETF | 5.57% | 0.19% |
Correlation
The correlation between ZFH.TO and NHYB is -0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2025 | -0.01 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
ZFH.TO vs. NHYB — Risk / Return Rank
ZFH.TO
NHYB
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
ZFH.TO vs. NHYB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF (ZFH.TO) and Nuveen High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (NHYB). 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.
| ZFH.TO | NHYB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.40 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.84 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ZFH.TO vs. NHYB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ZFH.TO drawdown since its inception was -21.41%, which is greater than NHYB's maximum drawdown of -3.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZFH.TO and NHYB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ZFH.TO | NHYB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.41% | -3.57% | -17.84% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.27% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.39% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -9.75% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -21.41% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.26% | -0.62% | +0.36% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.05% | -1.14% | -0.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.94% | — | — |
Volatility
ZFH.TO vs. NHYB - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ZFH.TO | NHYB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.57% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.78% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.74% | 5.43% | -1.69% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.11% | 5.43% | +2.68% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.43% | 5.43% | +4.00% |
ZFH.TO vs. NHYB - Expense Ratio Comparison
ZFH.TO has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than NHYB's 0.08% expense ratio.
Dividends
ZFH.TO vs. NHYB - Dividend Comparison
ZFH.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.17%, more than NHYB's 4.82% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NHYB Nuveen High Yield Corporate Bond ETF | 4.82% | 1.28% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
ZFH.TO BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF | 5.17% | 5.58% | 7.82% | 7.07% | 4.81% | 4.54% | 4.57% | 4.32% | 4.51% | 4.64% | 4.70% | 5.01% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ZFH.TO and NHYB have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, NHYB is cheaper at 0.08% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
NHYB is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for ZFH.TO.
They also come from different issuers: BMO and Nuveen. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for ZFH.TO and 0.08% for NHYB.
Find the right allocation for ZFH.TO and NHYB
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