ZIC.TO vs. FCSB.NEO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ZIC.TO (BMO Mid-Term US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index ETF) and FCSB.NEO (Fidelity Canadian Short Term Corporate Bond ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds - ZIC.TO tracks the Bloomberg US Investment Grade 5 to 10 Year Corporate Bond Capped Index while FCSB.NEO tracks the FTSE Canada Short Term Corporate Bond 5% Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ZIC.TO returned 3.89%/yr vs 2.93%/yr for FCSB.NEO. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZIC.TO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.44%/yr for FCSB.NEO.

Performance

ZIC.TO vs. FCSB.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BMO Mid-Term US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index ETF (ZIC.TO) and Fidelity Canadian Short Term Corporate Bond ETF (FCSB.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZIC.TO achieves a 1.06% return, which is significantly lower than FCSB.NEO's 1.45% return.

ZIC.TO

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 2.32%
• YTD: 1.06%
• 6M: -0.75%
• 1Y: 7.10%
• 3Y*: 6.85%
• 5Y*: 3.89%
• 10Y*: 3.47%

FCSB.NEO

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.76%
• YTD: 1.45%
• 6M: 1.43%
• 1Y: 3.84%
• 3Y*: 5.99%
• 5Y*: 2.93%
• 10Y*: —

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

ZIC.TO vs. FCSB.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ZIC.TO BMO Mid-Term US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index ETF	1.06%	4.24%	11.86%	6.33%	-8.93%	-1.36%	6.51%	-0.25%
FCSB.NEO Fidelity Canadian Short Term Corporate Bond ETF	1.45%	4.15%	7.55%	6.81%	-4.22%	-0.81%	6.26%	0.82%

Correlation

The correlation between ZIC.TO and FCSB.NEO is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.19
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.28
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 23, 2019	0.24

Return for Risk

ZIC.TO vs. FCSB.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ZIC.TO

ZIC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 34
ZIC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
ZIC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
ZIC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 36
ZIC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
ZIC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 27

FCSB.NEO

FCSB.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 46
FCSB.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
FCSB.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
FCSB.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 42
FCSB.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
FCSB.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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.

ZIC.TO vs. FCSB.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Mid-Term US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index ETF (ZIC.TO) and Fidelity Canadian Short Term Corporate Bond ETF (FCSB.NEO). 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.

	ZIC.TO	FCSB.NEO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.30	1.43	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.91	2.12	-0.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.27	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.67	2.44	-0.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.61	8.99	-5.39
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ZIC.TO vs. FCSB.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZIC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.30, which is comparable to the FCSB.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 1.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZIC.TO and FCSB.NEO, 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

	ZIC.TO	FCSB.NEO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.30	1.43	-0.13
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.49	0.89	-0.40
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.39	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	0.65	-0.06

Drawdowns

ZIC.TO vs. FCSB.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZIC.TO drawdown since its inception was -19.49%, which is greater than FCSB.NEO's maximum drawdown of -12.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZIC.TO and FCSB.NEO.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZIC.TO	FCSB.NEO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.49%	-12.48%	-7.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.26%	-1.58%	-2.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-6.96%	-1.58%	-5.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-15.66%	-7.44%	-8.22%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-19.49%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.69%	0.00%	-1.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.15%	-1.51%	-3.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.97%	0.43%	+1.54%

Volatility

ZIC.TO vs. FCSB.NEO - Volatility Comparison

BMO Mid-Term US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index ETF (ZIC.TO) has a higher volatility of 1.68% compared to Fidelity Canadian Short Term Corporate Bond ETF (FCSB.NEO) at 0.95%. This indicates that ZIC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FCSB.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZIC.TO	FCSB.NEO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.68%	0.95%	+0.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.17%	2.07%	+2.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.47%	2.70%	+2.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.95%	3.30%	+4.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.91%	4.96%	+3.95%

ZIC.TO vs. FCSB.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZIC.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than FCSB.NEO's 0.44% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZIC.TO vs. FCSB.NEO - Dividend Comparison

ZIC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.32%, more than FCSB.NEO's 3.78% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCSB.NEO Fidelity Canadian Short Term Corporate Bond ETF	3.78%	3.73%	3.59%	3.06%	2.09%	1.58%	2.34%	0.38%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZIC.TO BMO Mid-Term US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index ETF	4.32%	4.03%	3.79%	3.84%	3.93%	3.52%	3.46%	3.56%	3.46%	3.32%	3.29%	3.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZIC.TO and FCSB.NEO in my portfolio?

ZIC.TO and FCSB.NEO have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ZIC.TO or FCSB.NEO?

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

Which ETF is cheaper, ZIC.TO or FCSB.NEO?

ZIC.TO is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.44% for FCSB.NEO.

What is the main difference between ZIC.TO and FCSB.NEO?

ZIC.TO tracks Bloomberg US Investment Grade 5 to 10 Year Corporate Bond Capped Index, while FCSB.NEO tracks FTSE Canada Short Term Corporate Bond 5% Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: BMO and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for ZIC.TO and 0.44% for FCSB.NEO.