ZMT.TO vs. XETM.TO
ZMT.TO (BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)) and XETM.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Energy Transition Materials Index ETF) are both Materials funds - ZMT.TO tracks the Solactive Equal Weight Global Base Metals Index Canadian Dollar Hedged while XETM.TO tracks the S&P/TSX Energy Transition Materials Index. Both are passively managed. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ZMT.TO charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for XETM.TO.
Performance
ZMT.TO vs. XETM.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
ZMT.TO
- 1D
- -3.72%
- 1M
- -1.01%
- YTD
- 24.75%
- 6M
- 23.80%
- 1Y
- 85.17%
- 3Y*
- 35.09%
- 5Y*
- 19.61%
- 10Y*
- 15.85%
XETM.TO
- 1D
- -4.74%
- 1M
- -2.13%
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ZMT.TO vs. XETM.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
ZMT.TO BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) | 7.17% |
XETM.TO iShares S&P/TSX Energy Transition Materials Index ETF | -4.36% |
Correlation
The correlation between ZMT.TO and XETM.TO is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 20, 2026 | 0.93 |
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
ZMT.TO vs. XETM.TO — Risk / Return Rank
ZMT.TO
XETM.TO
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
ZMT.TO vs. XETM.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 iShares S&P/TSX Energy Transition Materials Index ETF (XETM.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.
| ZMT.TO | XETM.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.60 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.74 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ZMT.TO vs. XETM.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ZMT.TO drawdown since its inception was -82.27%, which is greater than XETM.TO's maximum drawdown of -25.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZMT.TO and XETM.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ZMT.TO | XETM.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -82.27% | -25.13% | -57.14% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -23.81% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -33.28% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -41.01% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -68.54% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -13.69% | -14.50% | +0.81% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -45.92% | -9.20% | -36.72% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.95% | — | — |
Volatility
ZMT.TO vs. XETM.TO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ZMT.TO | XETM.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 15.54% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 34.05% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 40.97% | 50.11% | -9.14% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 34.18% | 50.11% | -15.93% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 33.48% | 50.11% | -16.63% |
ZMT.TO vs. XETM.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
ZMT.TO has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than XETM.TO's 0.59% expense ratio.
Dividends
ZMT.TO vs. XETM.TO - Dividend Comparison
ZMT.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.17%, while XETM.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XETM.TO iShares S&P/TSX Energy Transition Materials Index ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
ZMT.TO BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) | 0.17% | 0.21% | 0.34% | 0.87% | 1.46% | 2.82% | 1.03% | 2.34% | 0.79% | 0.26% | 0.25% | 0.22% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.93, ZMT.TO and XETM.TO move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
On fees, XETM.TO is cheaper at 0.59% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XETM.TO is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for ZMT.TO.
ZMT.TO tracks Solactive Equal Weight Global Base Metals Index Canadian Dollar Hedged, while XETM.TO tracks S&P/TSX Energy Transition Materials Index. They also come from different issuers: BMO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for ZMT.TO and 0.59% for XETM.TO.
Find the right allocation for ZMT.TO and XETM.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