PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ZIN.TO vs. CIF.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ZIN.TO vs. CIF.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ZIN.TO (BMO Equal Weight Industrials Index ETF) and CIF.TO (iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZIN.TO is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Industrials Index, while CIF.TO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ZIN.TO returned 13.42%/yr vs 12.99%/yr for CIF.TO. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZIN.TO charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.72%/yr for CIF.TO.

Performance

ZIN.TO vs. CIF.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BMO Equal Weight Industrials Index ETF (ZIN.TO) and iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZIN.TO achieves a 22.77% return, which is significantly lower than CIF.TO's 25.20% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with ZIN.TO having a 13.42% annualized return and CIF.TO not far behind at 12.99%.

ZIN.TO

1D
-0.12%
1M
4.65%
YTD
22.77%
6M
26.17%
1Y
43.28%
3Y*
20.97%
5Y*
13.57%
10Y*
13.42%

CIF.TO

1D
1.03%
1M
3.28%
YTD
25.20%
6M
16.23%
1Y
35.22%
3Y*
25.10%
5Y*
18.52%
10Y*
12.99%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ZIN.TO vs. CIF.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ZIN.TO
BMO Equal Weight Industrials Index ETF		22.77%16.68%16.33%19.36%-8.06%17.86%6.62%22.67%-6.61%17.73%
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		25.20%14.45%25.40%14.65%5.90%17.73%-0.62%23.55%-5.46%2.34%

Correlation

The correlation between ZIN.TO and CIF.TO is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.45

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.43

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.45

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.47

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 26, 2012

0.44

ZIN.TO vs. CIF.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ZIN.TO
CIF.TO

Industrials

73.8%
31.8%

Energy

10.5%
20.8%

Consumer Cyclical

7.9%
0.5%

Utilities

2.8%
46.9%

Basic Materials

2.6%

-

Real Estate

2.4%

-

Financial Services

2.2%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Technology

-

0.5%

Industrials

ZIN.TO
73.8%
CIF.TO
31.8%

Energy

ZIN.TO
10.5%
CIF.TO
20.8%

Consumer Cyclical

ZIN.TO
7.9%
CIF.TO
0.5%

Utilities

ZIN.TO
2.8%
CIF.TO
46.9%

Basic Materials

ZIN.TO
2.6%
CIF.TO

-

Real Estate

ZIN.TO
2.4%
CIF.TO

-

Financial Services

ZIN.TO
2.2%
CIF.TO

-

Communication Services

ZIN.TO

-

CIF.TO

-

Consumer Defensive

ZIN.TO

-

CIF.TO

-

Healthcare

ZIN.TO

-

CIF.TO

-

Technology

ZIN.TO

-

CIF.TO
0.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

BMO Equal Weight Industrials Index ETF

iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF

Often compared with ZIN.TO:
ZIN.TO vs. ZEB.TOZIN.TO vs. ZMMK.TOZIN.TO vs. ZCN.TOZIN.TO vs. ZSP.TOZIN.TO vs. ZRE.TOZIN.TO vs. ZMI.TOZIN.TO vs. FIE.TO
Often compared with CIF.TO:
CIF.TO vs. VFV.TOCIF.TO vs. MLPP.LCIF.TO vs. ZQQ.TOCIF.TO vs. CWW.TOCIF.TO vs. VGTCIF.TO vs. XDIV.TOCIF.TO vs. ZGI.TO

Return for Risk

ZIN.TO vs. CIF.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
ZIN.TO
ZIN.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
ZIN.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8888
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZIN.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8686
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZIN.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
ZIN.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZIN.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
Martin Ratio Rank
CIF.TO
CIF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

ZIN.TO vs. CIF.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Equal Weight Industrials Index ETF (ZIN.TO) and iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.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.

ZIN.TOCIF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.97
2.33

+0.64

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.87
3.13

+0.74

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.52

1.43

+0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.37

3.72

+1.65

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

19.31

13.46

+5.85

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ZIN.TO vs. CIF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZIN.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.97, which is comparable to the CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZIN.TO and CIF.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.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

ZIN.TOCIF.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.97

2.33

+0.64

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.82

1.28

-0.46

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.75

0.78

-0.03

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.76

0.54

+0.22

Drawdowns

ZIN.TO vs. CIF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZIN.TO drawdown since its inception was -44.01%, roughly equal to the maximum CIF.TO drawdown of -42.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZIN.TO and CIF.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ZIN.TOCIF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.01%

-42.37%

-1.64%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.10%

-9.50%

+1.40%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.39%

-20.40%

-1.99%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-23.11%

-20.40%

-2.71%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-44.01%

-42.37%

-1.64%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.12%

-0.76%

+0.64%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.14%

-5.66%

-0.48%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.25%

2.63%

-0.38%

Volatility

ZIN.TO vs. CIF.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BMO Equal Weight Industrials Index ETF (ZIN.TO) is 3.38%, while iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) has a volatility of 5.85%. This indicates that ZIN.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CIF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ZIN.TOCIF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.38%

5.85%

-2.47%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.39%

12.44%

-1.05%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.67%

15.23%

-0.56%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.70%

14.56%

+2.14%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.04%

16.69%

+1.35%

ZIN.TO vs. CIF.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZIN.TO has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is lower than CIF.TO's 0.72% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZIN.TO vs. CIF.TO - Dividend Comparison

ZIN.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.95%, less than CIF.TO's 1.77% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		1.77%2.05%2.84%2.36%2.53%2.24%2.06%1.83%2.45%2.27%1.81%2.41%
ZIN.TO
BMO Equal Weight Industrials Index ETF		0.95%1.22%1.41%1.67%2.01%1.84%2.10%2.31%1.81%1.35%1.91%2.24%

Frequently Asked Questions

ZIN.TO and CIF.TO have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ZIN.TO is cheaper at 0.61% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ZIN.TO is cheaper with a 0.61% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CIF.TO.

ZIN.TO is categorized as Industrials Equities, while CIF.TO is Energy Equities. ZIN.TO tracks Solactive Equal Weight Canada Industrials Index, while CIF.TO tracks Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index. They also come from different issuers: BMO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for ZIN.TO and 0.72% for CIF.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ZIN.TO and CIF.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