ZIC.TO vs. ZEQT.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ZIC.TO (BMO Mid-Term US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index ETF) and ZEQT.TO (BMO All-Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZIC.TO is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Investment Grade 5 to 10 Year Corporate Bond Capped Index, while ZEQT.TO is a Global Equities fund actively managed by BMO. ZIC.TO is passively managed, while ZEQT.TO is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ZIC.TO returned 6.85%/yr vs 22.90%/yr for ZEQT.TO. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZIC.TO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for ZEQT.TO.

Performance

ZIC.TO vs. ZEQT.TO - 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 BMO All-Equity ETF (ZEQT.TO). 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 ZEQT.TO's 13.04% 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%

ZEQT.TO

• 1D: -0.43%
• 1M: 6.38%
• YTD: 13.04%
• 6M: 12.85%
• 1Y: 31.85%
• 3Y*: 22.90%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ZIC.TO vs. ZEQT.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
ZIC.TO BMO Mid-Term US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index ETF	1.06%	4.24%	11.86%	6.33%	-6.51%
ZEQT.TO BMO All-Equity ETF	13.04%	19.67%	25.44%	16.79%	-5.55%

Correlation

The correlation between ZIC.TO and ZEQT.TO is 0.18, 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	0.17
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 28, 2022	0.07

The correlation between ZIC.TO and ZEQT.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.07 (all time) to 0.18 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

ZIC.TO vs. ZEQT.TO — 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

ZEQT.TO

ZEQT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 75
ZEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
ZEQT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
ZEQT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 76
ZEQT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
ZEQT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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. ZEQT.TO - 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 BMO All-Equity ETF (ZEQT.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.

	ZIC.TO	ZEQT.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.30	2.51	-1.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.91	3.49	-1.58
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.46	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.67	3.67	-1.99
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.61	15.48	-11.87
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. ZEQT.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZIC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.30, which is lower than the ZEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZIC.TO and ZEQT.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

	ZIC.TO	ZEQT.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.30	2.51	-1.21
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.49	—	—
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	1.19	-0.60

Drawdowns

ZIC.TO vs. ZEQT.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZIC.TO drawdown since its inception was -19.49%, which is greater than ZEQT.TO's maximum drawdown of -16.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZIC.TO and ZEQT.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZIC.TO	ZEQT.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.49%	-16.87%	-2.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.26%	-8.72%	+4.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-6.96%	-15.34%	+8.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-15.66%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-19.49%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.69%	-1.16%	-0.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.15%	-3.01%	-2.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.97%	2.06%	-0.09%

Volatility

ZIC.TO vs. ZEQT.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BMO Mid-Term US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index ETF (ZIC.TO) is 1.68%, while BMO All-Equity ETF (ZEQT.TO) has a volatility of 5.22%. This indicates that ZIC.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZEQT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZIC.TO	ZEQT.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.68%	5.22%	-3.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.17%	10.46%	-6.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.47%	12.75%	-7.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.95%	13.85%	-5.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.91%	13.85%	-4.94%

ZIC.TO vs. ZEQT.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZIC.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than ZEQT.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

ZIC.TO vs. ZEQT.TO - Dividend Comparison

ZIC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.32%, more than ZEQT.TO's 1.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ZEQT.TO BMO All-Equity ETF	1.28%	1.45%	1.69%	2.13%	2.43%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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 ZEQT.TO in my portfolio?

ZIC.TO and ZEQT.TO have a correlation of 0.18, 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 ZEQT.TO?

On fees, ZEQT.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, ZIC.TO or ZEQT.TO?

ZEQT.TO is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for ZIC.TO.

What is the main difference between ZIC.TO and ZEQT.TO?

ZIC.TO is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while ZEQT.TO is Global Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for ZIC.TO and 0.18% for ZEQT.TO.