ZFL.TO vs. CBIL.TO
ZFL.TO (BMO Long Federal Bond) and CBIL.TO (Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF) are both Canadian Government Bonds funds. ZFL.TO is passively managed, while CBIL.TO is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ZFL.TO returned -0.42%/yr vs 3.63%/yr for CBIL.TO. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZFL.TO charges 0.22%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for CBIL.TO.
Performance
ZFL.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ZFL.TO achieves a 2.39% return, which is significantly higher than CBIL.TO's 0.85% return.
ZFL.TO
- 1D
- -0.33%
- 1M
- 2.93%
- YTD
- 2.39%
- 6M
- -0.37%
- 1Y
- -0.83%
- 3Y*
- -0.42%
- 5Y*
- -3.89%
- 10Y*
- -1.37%
CBIL.TO
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 0.20%
- YTD
- 0.85%
- 6M
- 1.08%
- 1Y
- 2.34%
- 3Y*
- 3.63%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ZFL.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ZFL.TO BMO Long Federal Bond | 2.39% | -5.14% | -2.20% | 3.79% |
CBIL.TO Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF | 0.85% | 2.68% | 4.47% | 3.36% |
Correlation
The correlation between ZFL.TO and CBIL.TO is -0.00, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.00 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.03 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 17, 2023 | 0.04 |
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
ZFL.TO vs. CBIL.TO — Risk / Return Rank
ZFL.TO
CBIL.TO
ZFL.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Long Federal Bond (ZFL.TO) and Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CBIL.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.
| ZFL.TO | CBIL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -9.56 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -23.64 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.99 | 5.38 | -4.39 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.12 | 58.74 | -58.86 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.22 | 339.60 | -339.82 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ZFL.TO | CBIL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.09 | 9.47 | -9.56 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.27 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.11 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.16 | 11.64 | -11.47 |
Drawdowns
ZFL.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ZFL.TO drawdown since its inception was -40.32%, which is greater than CBIL.TO's maximum drawdown of -0.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZFL.TO and CBIL.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ZFL.TO | CBIL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -40.32% | -0.06% | -40.26% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.68% | -0.04% | -6.64% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -14.51% | -0.06% | -14.45% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -32.25% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -40.32% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -31.87% | 0.00% | -31.87% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.45% | -0.00% | -12.45% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.82% | 0.01% | +3.81% |
Volatility
ZFL.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Volatility Comparison
BMO Long Federal Bond (ZFL.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.14% compared to Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CBIL.TO) at 0.08%. This indicates that ZFL.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CBIL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ZFL.TO | CBIL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.14% | 0.08% | +3.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.05% | 0.19% | +6.86% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.72% | 0.25% | +9.47% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.71% | 0.31% | +14.40% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 12.54% | 0.31% | +12.23% |
ZFL.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
ZFL.TO has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is higher than CBIL.TO's 0.10% 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
ZFL.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Dividend Comparison
ZFL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.84%, more than CBIL.TO's 2.29% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBIL.TO Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF | 2.29% | 2.59% | 4.38% | 3.39% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
ZFL.TO BMO Long Federal Bond | 2.84% | 3.13% | 3.20% | 3.49% | 3.77% | 2.85% | 2.57% | 2.95% | 3.00% | 2.99% | 3.05% | 3.10% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ZFL.TO and CBIL.TO have a correlation of -0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CBIL.TO is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CBIL.TO is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.22% for ZFL.TO.
They also come from different issuers: BMO and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.22% for ZFL.TO and 0.10% for CBIL.TO.
Find the right allocation for ZFL.TO and CBIL.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