PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ZPW.TO vs. HLIF.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ZPW.TO vs. HLIF.TO

Last updated Jul 1, 2026
See Documentation

ZPW.TO (BMO US Put Write ETF) and HLIF.TO (Harvest Canadian Equity Income Leaders ETF Class A) are both Derivative Income funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ZPW.TO returned 11.38%/yr vs 20.34%/yr for HLIF.TO. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZPW.TO charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for HLIF.TO.

Performance

ZPW.TO vs. HLIF.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BMO US Put Write ETF (ZPW.TO) and Harvest Canadian Equity Income Leaders ETF Class A (HLIF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZPW.TO achieves a 4.29% return, which is significantly lower than HLIF.TO's 15.78% return.

ZPW.TO

1D
0.00%
1M
1.26%
YTD
4.29%
6M
4.22%
1Y
12.08%
3Y*
11.38%
5Y*
9.22%
10Y*
6.04%

HLIF.TO

1D
-0.40%
1M
1.13%
YTD
15.78%
6M
15.50%
1Y
34.80%
3Y*
20.34%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ZPW.TO vs. HLIF.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
ZPW.TO
BMO US Put Write ETF		4.29%6.40%13.88%21.83%10.10%
HLIF.TO
Harvest Canadian Equity Income Leaders ETF Class A		15.78%25.43%17.21%6.13%-2.97%

Correlation

The correlation between ZPW.TO and HLIF.TO is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.26

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

0.25

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 13, 2022

0.29

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

BMO US Put Write ETF

Harvest Canadian Equity Income Leaders ETF Class A

Often compared with HLIF.TO:
HLIF.TO vs. HYLD-U.TOHLIF.TO vs. HDIV.TOHLIF.TO vs. JEPQ.TOHLIF.TO vs. MSTE.TOHLIF.TO vs. QMAX.TOHLIF.TO vs. AMAX.TOHLIF.TO vs. CRCY.TO

Return for Risk

ZPW.TO vs. HLIF.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
ZPW.TO
ZPW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5353
Overall Rank
ZPW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5858
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZPW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZPW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
ZPW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5050
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZPW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 4343
Martin Ratio Rank
HLIF.TO
HLIF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
HLIF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9898
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HLIF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
HLIF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
HLIF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9898
Calmar Ratio Rank
HLIF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9898
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.

ZPW.TO vs. HLIF.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO US Put Write ETF (ZPW.TO) and Harvest Canadian Equity Income Leaders ETF Class A (HLIF.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.

ZPW.TOHLIF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.68
5.00

-3.31

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.31
7.52

-5.21

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.32

2.02

-0.70

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.16

11.31

-9.15

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.12

55.88

-49.76

ZPW.TO vs. HLIF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZPW.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.68, which is lower than the HLIF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 5.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZPW.TO and HLIF.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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

ZPW.TO vs. HLIF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZPW.TO drawdown since its inception was -23.77%, which is greater than HLIF.TO's maximum drawdown of -11.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZPW.TO and HLIF.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ZPW.TOHLIF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-23.77%

-11.12%

-12.65%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.61%

-3.09%

-2.52%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.35%

-9.96%

-2.39%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-16.57%

—

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-23.77%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.53%

-1.42%

+0.89%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.06%

-1.99%

-2.07%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.98%

0.62%

+1.36%

Volatility

ZPW.TO vs. HLIF.TO - Volatility Comparison

BMO US Put Write ETF (ZPW.TO) has a higher volatility of 2.87% compared to Harvest Canadian Equity Income Leaders ETF Class A (HLIF.TO) at 2.15%. This indicates that ZPW.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HLIF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ZPW.TOHLIF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.87%

2.15%

+0.72%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.10%

5.89%

+0.21%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

7.22%

7.02%

+0.20%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

10.61%

10.41%

+0.20%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

11.72%

10.41%

+1.31%

ZPW.TO vs. HLIF.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZPW.TO has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than HLIF.TO's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZPW.TO vs. HLIF.TO - Dividend Comparison

ZPW.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.62%, more than HLIF.TO's 5.59% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
HLIF.TO
Harvest Canadian Equity Income Leaders ETF Class A		5.59%6.26%7.33%7.96%3.91%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
ZPW.TO
BMO US Put Write ETF		9.62%9.55%9.18%7.57%8.20%7.24%7.61%7.17%6.61%6.82%7.32%2.32%

Frequently Asked Questions

ZPW.TO and HLIF.TO have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ZPW.TO is cheaper at 0.65% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ZPW.TO is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for HLIF.TO.

They also come from different issuers: BMO and Harvest. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for ZPW.TO and 0.79% for HLIF.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ZPW.TO and HLIF.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