ZNQ.TO vs. CJP.NEO

Last updated Jul 25, 2026

ZNQ.TO (BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF) and CJP.NEO (iShares Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - ZNQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while CJP.NEO is a Japan Equities fund tracking the FTSE RAFI Japan Canadian Dollar Hedged Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ZNQ.TO returned 16.19%/yr vs 23.84%/yr for CJP.NEO. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZNQ.TO charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.71%/yr for CJP.NEO.

Performance

ZNQ.TO vs. CJP.NEO - 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 Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CJP.NEO). 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 CJP.NEO's 20.36% 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%

CJP.NEO

• 1D: 0.88%
• 1M: 2.18%
• 6M: 15.65%
• YTD: 20.36%
• 1Y: 43.34%
• 3Y*: 28.63%
• 5Y*: 23.84%
• 10Y*: 16.43%
• ALL TIME*: 10.52%

*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)
CJP.NEO iShares Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)	CA$1.04M	CA$644.80K	CA$793.54K
ZNQ.TO BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF	CA$2.18M	CA$4.88M	CA$3.43M

ZNQ.TO vs. CJP.NEO - 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%
CJP.NEO iShares Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)	20.36%	30.67%	26.74%	35.03%	3.67%	18.19%	0.18%	8.26%

Correlation

The correlation between ZNQ.TO and CJP.NEO is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.43
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	0.38

Return for Risk

ZNQ.TO vs. CJP.NEO — 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

CJP.NEO

CJP.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 91
CJP.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
CJP.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
CJP.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 91
CJP.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CJP.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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. CJP.NEO - 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 Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CJP.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.

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	CJP.NEO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	2.34	-0.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.88	3.07	-1.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.42	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.09	3.98	-1.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.21	14.47	-8.26

ZNQ.TO vs. CJP.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZNQ.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is lower than the CJP.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 2.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZNQ.TO and CJP.NEO, 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. CJP.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZNQ.TO drawdown since its inception was -32.09%, smaller than the maximum CJP.NEO drawdown of -38.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZNQ.TO and CJP.NEO.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZNQ.TO	CJP.NEO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.09%	-38.36%	+6.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.24%	-10.99%	-1.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.67%	-20.86%	-1.81%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.09%	-20.86%	-11.23%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-37.75%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.85%	-1.97%	-5.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.57%	-11.09%	+4.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.10%	3.02%	+1.08%

Volatility

ZNQ.TO vs. CJP.NEO - Volatility Comparison

BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF (ZNQ.TO) has a higher volatility of 7.21% compared to iShares Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CJP.NEO) at 4.78%. This indicates that ZNQ.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CJP.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZNQ.TO	CJP.NEO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.21%	4.78%	+2.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.40%	14.23%	+1.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.74%	18.70%	+0.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.29%	18.43%	+2.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.48%	19.28%	+3.20%

ZNQ.TO vs. CJP.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZNQ.TO has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than CJP.NEO's 0.71% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZNQ.TO vs. CJP.NEO - Dividend Comparison

ZNQ.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.22%, less than CJP.NEO's 1.16% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CJP.NEO iShares Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)	1.16%	1.48%	1.71%	1.24%	1.96%	1.56%	1.97%	2.42%	2.38%	1.48%	0.97%	0.84%
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 CJP.NEO in my portfolio?

ZNQ.TO and CJP.NEO have a correlation of 0.43, 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 CJP.NEO?

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 CJP.NEO?

ZNQ.TO is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.71% for CJP.NEO.

What is the main difference between ZNQ.TO and CJP.NEO?

ZNQ.TO is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while CJP.NEO is Japan Equities. ZNQ.TO tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while CJP.NEO tracks FTSE RAFI Japan Canadian Dollar Hedged Index. They also come from different issuers: BMO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ZNQ.TO and 0.71% for CJP.NEO.