ZNQ.TO vs. CEW.TO

Last updated Jul 25, 2026

ZNQ.TO (BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF) and CEW.TO (iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZNQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while CEW.TO is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Gbl Fin Svc GR CAD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ZNQ.TO returned 16.19%/yr vs 21.20%/yr for CEW.TO. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZNQ.TO charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.61%/yr for CEW.TO.

Performance

ZNQ.TO vs. CEW.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF (ZNQ.TO) and iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF (CEW.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZNQ.TO achieves a 14.59% return, which is significantly lower than CEW.TO's 31.42% return.

ZNQ.TO

• 1D: -1.01%
• 1M: -4.55%
• 6M: 13.21%
• YTD: 14.59%
• 1Y: 25.42%
• 3Y*: 24.86%
• 5Y*: 16.19%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 21.91%

CEW.TO

• 1D: 0.73%
• 1M: 3.62%
• 6M: 31.46%
• YTD: 31.42%
• 1Y: 57.36%
• 3Y*: 33.84%
• 5Y*: 21.20%
• 10Y*: 16.56%
• ALL TIME*: 12.01%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CEW.TO iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF	CA$3.72M	CA$2.72M	CA$1.77M
ZNQ.TO BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF	CA$2.18M	CA$4.88M	CA$3.43M

ZNQ.TO vs. CEW.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ZNQ.TO BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF	14.59%	14.95%	35.84%	51.32%	-28.06%	26.59%	44.65%	22.53%
CEW.TO iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF	31.42%	32.70%	29.62%	17.18%	-6.76%	29.51%	-0.38%	16.23%

Correlation

The correlation between ZNQ.TO and CEW.TO is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.38
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 12, 2019	0.35

ZNQ.TO vs. CEW.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ZNQ.TO	CEW.TO
Technology	59.9%	-
Communication Services	12.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	10.5%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.3%	-
Industrials	4.0%	-
Healthcare	3.6%	-
Utilities	1.2%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	-
Energy	0.5%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	100.0%
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

ZNQ.TO vs. CEW.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZNQ.TO

ZNQ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 57
ZNQ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
ZNQ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
ZNQ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 57
ZNQ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
ZNQ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 53

CEW.TO

CEW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 98
CEW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
CEW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
CEW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 98
CEW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
CEW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

ZNQ.TO vs. CEW.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF (ZNQ.TO) and iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF (CEW.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.

	ZNQ.TO	CEW.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	4.68	-3.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.88	6.10	-4.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.84	-0.59
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.09	8.09	-6.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.21	29.53	-23.31

ZNQ.TO vs. CEW.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZNQ.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is lower than the CEW.TO Sharpe Ratio of 4.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZNQ.TO and CEW.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

ZNQ.TO vs. CEW.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZNQ.TO drawdown since its inception was -32.09%, smaller than the maximum CEW.TO drawdown of -53.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZNQ.TO and CEW.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZNQ.TO	CEW.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.09%	-53.50%	+21.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.24%	-7.13%	-5.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.67%	-12.72%	-9.95%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.09%	-22.41%	-9.68%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-43.66%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.85%	-1.79%	-6.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.57%	-6.90%	+0.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.10%	1.95%	+2.15%

Volatility

ZNQ.TO vs. CEW.TO - Volatility Comparison

BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF (ZNQ.TO) has a higher volatility of 7.21% compared to iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF (CEW.TO) at 4.08%. This indicates that ZNQ.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEW.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZNQ.TO	CEW.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.21%	4.08%	+3.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.40%	10.01%	+5.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.74%	12.31%	+6.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.29%	13.58%	+7.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.48%	17.00%	+5.48%

ZNQ.TO vs. CEW.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZNQ.TO has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than CEW.TO's 0.61% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZNQ.TO vs. CEW.TO - Dividend Comparison

ZNQ.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.22%, less than CEW.TO's 2.17% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CEW.TO iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF	2.17%	2.82%	3.41%	3.98%	3.95%	3.10%	3.83%	3.39%	3.13%	2.62%	2.70%	2.91%
ZNQ.TO BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF	0.22%	0.25%	0.30%	0.35%	0.23%	0.12%	0.47%	0.52%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZNQ.TO and CEW.TO in my portfolio?

ZNQ.TO and CEW.TO have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ZNQ.TO or CEW.TO?

On fees, ZNQ.TO is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZNQ.TO or CEW.TO?

ZNQ.TO is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for CEW.TO.

What is the main difference between ZNQ.TO and CEW.TO?

ZNQ.TO is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while CEW.TO is Financials Equities. ZNQ.TO tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while CEW.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl Fin Svc GR CAD. They also come from different issuers: BMO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ZNQ.TO and 0.61% for CEW.TO.