ZLU.TO vs. FLUS.TO

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ZLU.TO (BMO Low Volatility US Equity ETF (CAD)) and FLUS.TO (Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. ZLU.TO is actively managed, while FLUS.TO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ZLU.TO returned 10.69%/yr vs 16.44%/yr for FLUS.TO. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZLU.TO charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for FLUS.TO.

Performance

ZLU.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BMO Low Volatility US Equity ETF (CAD) (ZLU.TO) and Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLUS.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZLU.TO achieves a 11.73% return, which is significantly lower than FLUS.TO's 14.55% return.

ZLU.TO

• 1D: 1.53%
• 1M: 0.70%
• YTD: 11.73%
• 6M: 6.89%
• 1Y: 12.64%
• 3Y*: 12.25%
• 5Y*: 10.69%
• 10Y*: 9.60%

FLUS.TO

• 1D: -1.11%
• 1M: 2.29%
• YTD: 14.55%
• 6M: 10.01%
• 1Y: 26.54%
• 3Y*: 23.53%
• 5Y*: 16.44%
• 10Y*: —

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

ZLU.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ZLU.TO BMO Low Volatility US Equity ETF (CAD)	11.73%	2.03%	21.63%	-3.26%	7.95%	20.72%	2.06%	20.48%	8.39%	-1.22%
FLUS.TO Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF	14.55%	10.51%	34.62%	20.97%	-9.96%	25.50%	8.45%	21.86%	4.72%	6.87%

Correlation

The correlation between ZLU.TO and FLUS.TO is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.25
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.25
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.37
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 13, 2017	0.45

Over the past year, the correlation between ZLU.TO and FLUS.TO has dropped to 0.25 - well below their long-term average of 0.45, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

ZLU.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ZLU.TO	FLUS.TO
Utilities	19.9%	1.4%
Technology	19.5%	37.0%
Healthcare	17.7%	10.1%
Consumer Defensive	11.4%	4.1%
Financial Services	10.2%	9.6%
Industrials	7.7%	9.5%
Communication Services	4.1%	11.7%
Consumer Cyclical	3.8%	11.3%
Real Estate	3.8%	2.7%
Basic Materials	0.7%	1.7%
Energy	0.4%	0.9%

Return for Risk

ZLU.TO vs. FLUS.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZLU.TO

ZLU.TO Risk / Return Rank: 33
ZLU.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
ZLU.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
ZLU.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 34
ZLU.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
ZLU.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 31

FLUS.TO

FLUS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 62
FLUS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
FLUS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
FLUS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 69
FLUS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
FLUS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

ZLU.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Low Volatility US Equity ETF (CAD) (ZLU.TO) and Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLUS.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.

	ZLU.TO	FLUS.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.20	1.84	-0.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.63	2.61	-0.98
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.37	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.69	2.71	-1.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.27	9.45	-5.17

ZLU.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZLU.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.20, which is lower than the FLUS.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZLU.TO and FLUS.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.

Drawdowns

ZLU.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZLU.TO drawdown since its inception was -25.49%, smaller than the maximum FLUS.TO drawdown of -28.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZLU.TO and FLUS.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZLU.TO	FLUS.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.49%	-28.24%	+2.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.52%	-9.85%	+2.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.15%	-18.82%	+9.67%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-10.30%	-19.11%	+8.81%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-25.49%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.27%	-1.25%	+0.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.09%	-3.70%	+0.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.96%	2.82%	+0.14%

Volatility

ZLU.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BMO Low Volatility US Equity ETF (CAD) (ZLU.TO) is 3.10%, while Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLUS.TO) has a volatility of 4.83%. This indicates that ZLU.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLUS.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZLU.TO	FLUS.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.10%	4.83%	-1.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.64%	11.48%	-2.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.59%	14.57%	-3.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.37%	14.91%	-3.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.92%	15.94%	-2.02%

ZLU.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZLU.TO has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than FLUS.TO's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZLU.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Dividend Comparison

ZLU.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.73%, more than FLUS.TO's 0.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLUS.TO Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF	0.57%	0.74%	0.94%	1.24%	1.77%	1.80%	1.67%	1.89%	1.72%	0.60%	0.00%	0.00%
ZLU.TO BMO Low Volatility US Equity ETF (CAD)	1.73%	1.95%	1.97%	2.39%	1.95%	1.76%	1.83%	1.57%	1.89%	2.00%	2.36%	1.80%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZLU.TO and FLUS.TO in my portfolio?

ZLU.TO and FLUS.TO have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ZLU.TO or FLUS.TO?

On fees, FLUS.TO is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZLU.TO or FLUS.TO?

FLUS.TO is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for ZLU.TO.

What is the main difference between ZLU.TO and FLUS.TO?

They also come from different issuers: BMO and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for ZLU.TO and 0.29% for FLUS.TO.