PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ZMT.TO vs. NNRG.NEO
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

ZMT.TO vs. NNRG.NEO

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) (ZMT.TO) and Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO).

ZMT.TO and NNRG.NEO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. ZMT.TO is a passively managed fund by BMO that tracks the performance of the Solactive Equal Weight Global Base Metals Index Canadian Dollar Hedged. It was launched on Oct 20, 2009. NNRG.NEO is a passively managed fund by Ninepoint that tracks the performance of the S&P/TSX Capped Energy Total Return Index. It was launched on May 11, 2021. Both ZMT.TO and NNRG.NEO are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

ZMT.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) (ZMT.TO) and Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

ZMT.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
ZMT.TO
BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)		9.48%63.17%15.30%14.54%-6.65%-14.76%
NNRG.NEO
Ninepoint Energy ETF		37.70%19.14%13.26%-4.21%66.18%55.91%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZMT.TO achieves a 9.48% return, which is significantly lower than NNRG.NEO's 37.70% return.

ZMT.TO

1D
7.64%
1M
-13.72%
YTD
9.48%
6M
27.57%
1Y
85.63%
3Y*
28.28%
5Y*
16.96%
10Y*
15.66%

NNRG.NEO

1D
-0.42%
1M
17.91%
YTD
37.70%
6M
51.12%
1Y
54.48%
3Y*
22.68%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)

Ninepoint Energy ETF

Often compared with ZMT.TO:
ZMT.TO vs. XBM.TOZMT.TO vs. COPPZMT.TO vs. COPXZMT.TO vs. REMXZMT.TO vs. ZGD.TOZMT.TO vs. SETMZMT.TO vs. SPY
Often compared with NNRG.NEO:
NNRG.NEO vs. XEG.TONNRG.NEO vs. DXMO.TONNRG.NEO vs. IXCNNRG.NEO vs. FRU.TONNRG.NEO vs. EFX.TONNRG.NEO vs. ENCC.TONNRG.NEO vs. XBM.TO

ZMT.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZMT.TO has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is lower than NNRG.NEO's 1.79% expense ratio.

NNRG.NEO
Ninepoint Energy ETF
ZMT.TO
BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)

Return for Risk

ZMT.TO vs. NNRG.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
ZMT.TO
ZMT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
ZMT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZMT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9191
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZMT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9090
Omega Ratio Rank
ZMT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZMT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
Martin Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO
NNRG.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
NNRG.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 9090
Omega Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

ZMT.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) (ZMT.TO) and Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO). 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.

ZMT.TONNRG.NEODifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.12

2.03

+0.09

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.66

2.48

+0.18

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.38

1.38

0.00

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.58

2.78

+0.80

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

11.07

8.52

+2.55

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

ZMT.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZMT.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is comparable to the NNRG.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZMT.TO and NNRG.NEO, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

ZMT.TONNRG.NEODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.12

2.03

+0.09

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.51

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.47

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.00

1.07

-1.07

Correlation

The correlation between ZMT.TO and NNRG.NEO is 0.38, 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

ZMT.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Dividend Comparison

ZMT.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.19%, less than NNRG.NEO's 0.54% yield.

TTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ZMT.TO
BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)		0.19%0.21%0.34%0.87%1.46%2.82%1.03%2.34%3.95%1.29%1.24%1.10%
NNRG.NEO
Ninepoint Energy ETF		0.54%0.37%0.39%0.38%9.08%1.92%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Drawdowns

ZMT.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZMT.TO drawdown since its inception was -80.73%, which is greater than NNRG.NEO's maximum drawdown of -35.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZMT.TO and NNRG.NEO.

Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators

ZMT.TONNRG.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-80.73%

-35.78%

-44.95%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-23.81%

-20.22%

-3.59%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-41.01%

—

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-67.51%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-14.38%

-1.13%

-13.25%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-43.56%

-9.77%

-33.79%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.70%

6.61%

+1.09%

Volatility

ZMT.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Volatility Comparison

BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) (ZMT.TO) has a higher volatility of 17.21% compared to Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO) at 5.95%. This indicates that ZMT.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NNRG.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period

ZMT.TONNRG.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

17.21%

5.95%

+11.26%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

32.63%

15.98%

+16.65%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

40.64%

26.95%

+13.69%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

33.30%

34.47%

-1.17%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

33.22%

34.47%

-1.25%