ZLH.TO vs. XMS.TO
ZLH.TO (BMO Low Volatility US Equity Hedged to CAD ETF) and XMS.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, ZLH.TO returned 7.51%/yr vs 7.51%/yr for XMS.TO. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZLH.TO charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for XMS.TO.
Performance
ZLH.TO vs. XMS.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ZLH.TO achieves a 9.49% return, which is significantly higher than XMS.TO's 1.23% return. Over a longer period, both investments have demonstrated similar performance, with their 10-year annualized returns being quite close: ZLH.TO at 7.51% and XMS.TO at 7.51%.
ZLH.TO
- 1D
- -0.10%
- 1M
- 1.61%
- YTD
- 9.49%
- 6M
- 8.95%
- 1Y
- 10.17%
- 3Y*
- 9.04%
- 5Y*
- 7.12%
- 10Y*
- 7.51%
XMS.TO
- 1D
- 0.94%
- 1M
- 0.29%
- YTD
- 1.23%
- 6M
- 0.86%
- 1Y
- 0.03%
- 3Y*
- 7.81%
- 5Y*
- 4.87%
- 10Y*
- 7.51%
ZLH.TO vs. XMS.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ZLH.TO BMO Low Volatility US Equity Hedged to CAD ETF | 9.49% | 5.90% | 10.95% | -2.11% | 0.20% | 22.07% | 2.34% | 25.20% | -1.85% | 11.93% |
XMS.TO iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 1.23% | 3.74% | 14.27% | 7.88% | -11.12% | 21.05% | 1.86% | 25.99% | -1.00% | 16.77% |
Correlation
The correlation between ZLH.TO and XMS.TO is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.43 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.54 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.52 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.49 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2016 | 0.49 |
The correlation between ZLH.TO and XMS.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.43 (1 year) to 0.54 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
ZLH.TO vs. XMS.TO — Risk / Return Rank
ZLH.TO
XMS.TO
ZLH.TO vs. XMS.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Low Volatility US Equity Hedged to CAD ETF (ZLH.TO) and iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XMS.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.
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.
| ZLH.TO | XMS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.98 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.25 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.19 | 1.01 | +0.18 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.39 | 0.00 | +1.39 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.38 | 0.01 | +3.37 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ZLH.TO vs. XMS.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ZLH.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.34%, smaller than the maximum XMS.TO drawdown of -36.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZLH.TO and XMS.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ZLH.TO | XMS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.34% | -36.87% | +3.53% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.35% | -8.32% | +0.97% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -10.17% | -9.80% | -0.37% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -14.66% | -19.06% | +4.40% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -33.34% | -36.87% | +3.53% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.60% | -3.16% | +1.56% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.91% | -4.44% | +0.53% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.02% | 3.59% | -0.57% |
Volatility
ZLH.TO vs. XMS.TO - Volatility Comparison
BMO Low Volatility US Equity Hedged to CAD ETF (ZLH.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.30% compared to iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XMS.TO) at 3.11%. This indicates that ZLH.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMS.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ZLH.TO | XMS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.30% | 3.11% | +0.19% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.33% | 6.34% | +0.99% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.39% | 10.28% | +0.11% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 12.21% | 12.38% | -0.17% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.81% | 15.22% | -1.41% |
ZLH.TO vs. XMS.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
ZLH.TO has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than XMS.TO's 0.33% expense ratio.
Dividends
ZLH.TO vs. XMS.TO - Dividend Comparison
ZLH.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.73%, more than XMS.TO's 1.21% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XMS.TO iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 1.21% | 1.10% | 1.24% | 1.41% | 1.22% | 1.02% | 1.71% | 1.44% | 1.58% | 2.02% | 0.94% |
ZLH.TO BMO Low Volatility US Equity Hedged to CAD ETF | 1.73% | 1.92% | 2.25% | 2.45% | 2.12% | 1.84% | 1.95% | 1.55% | 2.00% | 1.93% | 2.02% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ZLH.TO and XMS.TO have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ZLH.TO is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ZLH.TO is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for XMS.TO.
They also come from different issuers: BMO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for ZLH.TO and 0.33% for XMS.TO.
Find the right allocation for ZLH.TO and XMS.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