ZMT.TO vs. NXF.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ZMT.TO (BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)) and NXF.TO (CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)) are both Energy Equities funds. ZMT.TO is passively managed, while NXF.TO is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, ZMT.TO returned 17.71%/yr vs 8.23%/yr for NXF.TO. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

ZMT.TO vs. NXF.TO - 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 CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZMT.TO achieves a 39.44% return, which is significantly higher than NXF.TO's 32.43% return. Over the past 10 years, ZMT.TO has outperformed NXF.TO with an annualized return of 17.71%, while NXF.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 8.23% annualized return.

ZMT.TO

• 1D: -3.52%
• 1M: 16.19%
• YTD: 39.44%
• 6M: 46.49%
• 1Y: 109.69%
• 3Y*: 42.46%
• 5Y*: 20.69%
• 10Y*: 17.71%

NXF.TO

• 1D: 1.17%
• 1M: -2.11%
• YTD: 32.43%
• 6M: 29.37%
• 1Y: 45.90%
• 3Y*: 15.64%
• 5Y*: 17.39%
• 10Y*: 8.23%

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

ZMT.TO vs. NXF.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ZMT.TO BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)	39.44%	63.17%	15.30%	14.54%	-6.65%	11.04%	14.70%	15.82%	-34.17%	37.76%
NXF.TO CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)	32.43%	9.19%	-4.66%	6.48%	43.93%	40.64%	-35.30%	6.23%	-9.27%	3.08%

Correlation

The correlation between ZMT.TO and NXF.TO is -0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.01
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.22
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.38
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2015	0.42

The correlation between ZMT.TO and NXF.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.01 (1 year) to 0.45 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ZMT.TO vs. NXF.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ZMT.TO	NXF.TO
Basic Materials	89.9%	-
Industrials	10.1%	-
Energy	3.7%	100.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

ZMT.TO vs. NXF.TO — 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: 78
ZMT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
ZMT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
ZMT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 73
ZMT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
ZMT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 76

NXF.TO

NXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 73
NXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
NXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
NXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 64
NXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
NXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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. NXF.TO - 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 CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.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.

	ZMT.TO	NXF.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.84	2.36	+0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.23	3.03	+0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.38	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.63	4.90	-0.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.58	13.97	+0.61
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. NXF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZMT.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.84, which is comparable to the NXF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZMT.TO and NXF.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ZMT.TO	NXF.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.84	2.36	+0.48
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62	0.75	-0.13
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53	0.32	+0.22
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.00	0.22	-0.22

Drawdowns

ZMT.TO vs. NXF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZMT.TO drawdown since its inception was -80.73%, which is greater than NXF.TO's maximum drawdown of -65.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZMT.TO and NXF.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZMT.TO	NXF.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-80.73%	-65.25%	-15.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.81%	-9.41%	-14.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-33.28%	-24.26%	-9.02%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.01%	-24.26%	-16.75%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-67.51%	-65.25%	-2.26%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.52%	-5.01%	+1.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-43.15%	-16.04%	-27.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.55%	3.30%	+4.25%

Volatility

ZMT.TO vs. NXF.TO - Volatility Comparison

BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) (ZMT.TO) has a higher volatility of 14.55% compared to CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.TO) at 7.55%. This indicates that ZMT.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NXF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZMT.TO	NXF.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.55%	7.55%	+7.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	31.86%	15.65%	+16.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	38.81%	19.57%	+19.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.74%	23.39%	+10.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.32%	26.16%	+7.16%

Dividends

ZMT.TO vs. NXF.TO - Dividend Comparison

ZMT.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.15%, less than NXF.TO's 8.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NXF.TO CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)	8.04%	7.70%	8.50%	8.60%	11.22%	9.48%	11.23%	7.83%	9.38%	6.50%	8.24%	8.05%
ZMT.TO BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)	0.15%	0.21%	0.34%	0.87%	1.46%	2.82%	1.03%	2.34%	3.95%	1.29%	1.24%	1.10%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZMT.TO and NXF.TO in my portfolio?

ZMT.TO and NXF.TO have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

What is the main difference between ZMT.TO and NXF.TO?

They also come from different issuers: BMO and CI.