ZMI.TO vs. GCNS.TO
Compare and contrast key facts about BMO Monthly Income ETF (ZMI.TO) and iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio (GCNS.TO).
ZMI.TO and GCNS.TO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. ZMI.TO is an actively managed fund by BMO. It was launched on Jan 28, 2011. GCNS.TO is an actively managed fund by iShares. It was launched on Sep 2, 2020.
Performance
ZMI.TO vs. GCNS.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
ZMI.TO vs. GCNS.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ZMI.TO BMO Monthly Income ETF | 2.98% | 7.88% | 13.43% | 9.00% | -5.89% | 11.25% | 6.87% |
GCNS.TO iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio | -2.08% | 7.23% | 15.54% | 11.66% | -10.94% | 8.07% | 4.37% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ZMI.TO achieves a 2.98% return, which is significantly higher than GCNS.TO's -2.08% return.
ZMI.TO
- 1D
- 1.29%
- 1M
- -2.24%
- YTD
- 2.98%
- 6M
- 2.10%
- 1Y
- 8.46%
- 3Y*
- 10.12%
- 5Y*
- 6.90%
- 10Y*
- 6.17%
GCNS.TO
- 1D
- 0.40%
- 1M
- -4.37%
- YTD
- -2.08%
- 6M
- -2.07%
- 1Y
- 6.64%
- 3Y*
- 9.17%
- 5Y*
- 5.39%
- 10Y*
- —
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
ZMI.TO vs. GCNS.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
ZMI.TO has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than GCNS.TO's 0.25% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Return for Risk
ZMI.TO vs. GCNS.TO — Risk / Return Rank
ZMI.TO
GCNS.TO
ZMI.TO vs. GCNS.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Monthly Income ETF (ZMI.TO) and iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio (GCNS.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.
| ZMI.TO | GCNS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.94 | 0.65 | +0.29 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.25 | 0.93 | +0.33 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.20 | 1.15 | +0.05 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.19 | 1.22 | -0.02 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.53 | 3.91 | +0.62 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ZMI.TO | GCNS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.94 | 0.65 | +0.29 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.94 | 0.67 | +0.27 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.70 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.72 | 0.74 | -0.02 |
Correlation
The correlation between ZMI.TO and GCNS.TO is 0.30, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Dividends
ZMI.TO vs. GCNS.TO - Dividend Comparison
ZMI.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.30%, more than GCNS.TO's 2.16% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ZMI.TO BMO Monthly Income ETF | 4.30% | 4.54% | 4.68% | 4.94% | 4.49% | 3.71% | 4.21% | 4.24% | 4.58% | 4.06% | 3.89% | 3.89% |
GCNS.TO iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio | 2.16% | 2.07% | 2.03% | 2.88% | 2.09% | 1.60% | 2.49% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
ZMI.TO vs. GCNS.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ZMI.TO drawdown since its inception was -26.65%, which is greater than GCNS.TO's maximum drawdown of -15.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZMI.TO and GCNS.TO.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| ZMI.TO | GCNS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -26.65% | -15.37% | -11.28% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.66% | -5.05% | -2.61% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -12.65% | -15.37% | +2.72% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -26.65% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.24% | -4.43% | +2.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.14% | -3.65% | +1.51% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.03% | 1.57% | +0.46% |
Volatility
ZMI.TO vs. GCNS.TO - Volatility Comparison
BMO Monthly Income ETF (ZMI.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.14% compared to iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio (GCNS.TO) at 2.36%. This indicates that ZMI.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GCNS.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| ZMI.TO | GCNS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.14% | 2.36% | +0.78% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.97% | 4.91% | +1.06% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.09% | 9.58% | -0.49% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.39% | 8.07% | -0.68% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.83% | 7.80% | +1.03% |