PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ZLB.TO vs. ACWV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ZLB.TO vs. ACWV

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

ZLB.TO (BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZLB.TO is a Canada Equities fund actively managed by BMO, while ACWV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. ZLB.TO is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ZLB.TO returned 10.66%/yr vs 8.40%/yr for ACWV. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ZLB.TO charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

ZLB.TO vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF (ZLB.TO) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

ZLB.TO is traded in CAD, while ACWV is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the ACWV values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZLB.TO achieves a 5.69% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 4.97% return. Over the past 10 years, ZLB.TO has outperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 10.66%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively lower 8.40% annualized return.

ZLB.TO

1D
0.11%
1M
4.05%
YTD
5.69%
6M
2.84%
1Y
13.46%
3Y*
15.21%
5Y*
11.24%
10Y*
10.66%

ACWV

1D
0.52%
1M
2.56%
YTD
4.97%
6M
4.42%
1Y
8.47%
3Y*
11.63%
5Y*
8.55%
10Y*
8.40%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ZLB.TO vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ZLB.TO
BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF		5.69%20.40%15.31%9.41%-0.35%22.93%1.51%21.92%-2.76%11.11%
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		4.97%5.97%20.82%5.66%-4.68%13.91%0.60%16.05%6.87%10.54%

Correlation

The correlation between ZLB.TO and ACWV 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

0.52

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

0.53

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

0.52

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2011

0.51

The correlation between ZLB.TO and ACWV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.45 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

ZLB.TO vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ZLB.TO
ACWV

Financial Services

23.9%
13.2%

Consumer Defensive

18.3%
9.8%

Utilities

17.6%
7.3%

Industrials

10.0%
8.1%

Communication Services

9.3%
11.9%

Consumer Cyclical

8.5%
5.1%

Basic Materials

6.2%
1.5%

Real Estate

4.3%
0.6%

Technology

1.9%
25.8%

Energy

-

3.7%

Healthcare

-

13.0%

Financial Services

ZLB.TO
23.9%
ACWV
13.2%

Consumer Defensive

ZLB.TO
18.3%
ACWV
9.8%

Utilities

ZLB.TO
17.6%
ACWV
7.3%

Industrials

ZLB.TO
10.0%
ACWV
8.1%

Communication Services

ZLB.TO
9.3%
ACWV
11.9%

Consumer Cyclical

ZLB.TO
8.5%
ACWV
5.1%

Basic Materials

ZLB.TO
6.2%
ACWV
1.5%

Real Estate

ZLB.TO
4.3%
ACWV
0.6%

Technology

ZLB.TO
1.9%
ACWV
25.8%

Energy

ZLB.TO

-

ACWV
3.7%

Healthcare

ZLB.TO

-

ACWV
13.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF

iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF

Often compared with ZLB.TO:
ZLB.TO vs. VDY.TOZLB.TO vs. XIU.TOZLB.TO vs. XDIV.TOZLB.TO vs. XMW.TOZLB.TO vs. XBAL.TOZLB.TO vs. XUT.TOZLB.TO vs. XEG.TO
Often compared with ACWV:
ACWV vs. USMVACWV vs. VTACWV vs. MVOL.LACWV vs. EFAVACWV vs. SPLVACWV vs. VOOACWV vs. XMW.TO

Return for Risk

ZLB.TO vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
ZLB.TO
ZLB.TO Risk / Return Rank: 4848
Overall Rank
ZLB.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4747
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZLB.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZLB.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
ZLB.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5252
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZLB.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 4848
Martin Ratio Rank
ACWV
ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 2020
Overall Rank
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2121
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 1919
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 1919
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 2121
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.

ZLB.TO vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF (ZLB.TO) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.

ZLB.TOACWVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.44
0.80

+0.64

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.96
1.17

+0.80

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.15

+0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.34

1.36

+0.97

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.85

3.35

+3.50

ZLB.TO vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZLB.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.44, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZLB.TO and ACWV, 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...

Drawdowns

ZLB.TO vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZLB.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.96%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -22.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZLB.TO and ACWV.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ZLB.TOACWVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.96%

-22.43%

-11.53%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.67%

-5.27%

-0.40%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-8.01%

-8.50%

+0.49%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-13.00%

-14.73%

+1.73%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.96%

-22.43%

-11.53%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.30%

+0.30%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.49%

-2.67%

+0.18%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.93%

2.15%

-0.22%

Volatility

ZLB.TO vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF (ZLB.TO) has a higher volatility of 2.63% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 2.45%. This indicates that ZLB.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ZLB.TOACWVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.63%

2.45%

+0.18%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.60%

6.57%

+1.03%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.26%

9.05%

+0.21%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

9.62%

12.01%

-2.39%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

12.22%

13.94%

-1.72%

ZLB.TO vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZLB.TO has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZLB.TO vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

ZLB.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.88%, less than ACWV's 2.03% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		2.03%2.09%2.33%2.41%2.18%1.92%1.77%2.54%2.32%2.04%2.56%2.28%
ZLB.TO
BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF		1.88%1.99%2.37%2.67%2.66%2.39%2.83%2.44%2.76%2.55%2.94%2.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

ZLB.TO and ACWV 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, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for ZLB.TO.

ZLB.TO is categorized as Canada Equities, while ACWV is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: BMO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ZLB.TO and 0.20% for ACWV.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ZLB.TO and ACWV

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