PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ZQQ.TO vs. CIF.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ZQQ.TO vs. CIF.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ZQQ.TO (BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity (CAD Hedged)) and CIF.TO (iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZQQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while CIF.TO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ZQQ.TO returned 20.08%/yr vs 12.99%/yr for CIF.TO. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZQQ.TO charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.72%/yr for CIF.TO.

Performance

ZQQ.TO vs. CIF.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity (CAD Hedged) (ZQQ.TO) and iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZQQ.TO achieves a 19.82% return, which is significantly lower than CIF.TO's 25.20% return. Over the past 10 years, ZQQ.TO has outperformed CIF.TO with an annualized return of 20.08%, while CIF.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 12.99% annualized return.

ZQQ.TO

1D
-0.28%
1M
10.63%
YTD
19.82%
6M
18.08%
1Y
38.53%
3Y*
26.42%
5Y*
16.12%
10Y*
20.08%

CIF.TO

1D
1.03%
1M
3.28%
YTD
25.20%
6M
16.23%
1Y
35.22%
3Y*
25.10%
5Y*
18.52%
10Y*
12.99%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ZQQ.TO vs. CIF.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ZQQ.TO
BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity (CAD Hedged)		19.82%18.38%24.00%52.52%-33.75%26.68%45.33%37.08%-2.29%31.51%
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		25.20%14.45%25.40%14.65%5.90%17.73%-0.62%23.55%-5.46%2.34%

Correlation

The correlation between ZQQ.TO and CIF.TO is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.49

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

0.47

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.50

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.44

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 26, 2010

0.44

ZQQ.TO vs. CIF.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ZQQ.TO
CIF.TO

Technology

54.1%
0.5%

Communication Services

15.5%

-

Consumer Cyclical

12.2%
0.5%

Consumer Defensive

7.6%

-

Healthcare

4.2%

-

Industrials

3.1%
31.8%

Utilities

1.4%
46.9%

Basic Materials

1.2%

-

Energy

0.6%
20.8%

Financial Services

0.2%

-

Real Estate

0.1%

-

Technology

ZQQ.TO
54.1%
CIF.TO
0.5%

Communication Services

ZQQ.TO
15.5%
CIF.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

ZQQ.TO
12.2%
CIF.TO
0.5%

Consumer Defensive

ZQQ.TO
7.6%
CIF.TO

-

Healthcare

ZQQ.TO
4.2%
CIF.TO

-

Industrials

ZQQ.TO
3.1%
CIF.TO
31.8%

Utilities

ZQQ.TO
1.4%
CIF.TO
46.9%

Basic Materials

ZQQ.TO
1.2%
CIF.TO

-

Energy

ZQQ.TO
0.6%
CIF.TO
20.8%

Financial Services

ZQQ.TO
0.2%
CIF.TO

-

Real Estate

ZQQ.TO
0.1%
CIF.TO

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity (CAD Hedged)

iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF

Often compared with ZQQ.TO:
ZQQ.TO vs. ZNQ.TOZQQ.TO vs. XQQ.TOZQQ.TO vs. QQC.TOZQQ.TO vs. QQQZQQ.TO vs. VFV.TOZQQ.TO vs. TEC.TOZQQ.TO vs. ZSP.TO
Often compared with CIF.TO:
CIF.TO vs. VFV.TOCIF.TO vs. MLPP.LCIF.TO vs. CWW.TOCIF.TO vs. VGTCIF.TO vs. XDIV.TOCIF.TO vs. ZGI.TOCIF.TO vs. URA

Return for Risk

ZQQ.TO vs. CIF.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
ZQQ.TO
ZQQ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
ZQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZQQ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZQQ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
ZQQ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZQQ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
Martin Ratio Rank
CIF.TO
CIF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
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.

ZQQ.TO vs. CIF.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity (CAD Hedged) (ZQQ.TO) and iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.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.

ZQQ.TOCIF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.46
2.33

+0.13

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.25
3.13

+0.12

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.43

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.01

3.72

-0.71

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.25

13.46

-2.21

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ZQQ.TO vs. CIF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.46, which is comparable to the CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZQQ.TO and CIF.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

ZQQ.TOCIF.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.46

2.33

+0.13

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.72

1.28

-0.56

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.90

0.78

+0.12

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.91

0.54

+0.37

Drawdowns

ZQQ.TO vs. CIF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZQQ.TO drawdown since its inception was -36.39%, smaller than the maximum CIF.TO drawdown of -42.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZQQ.TO and CIF.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ZQQ.TOCIF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.39%

-42.37%

+5.98%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.86%

-9.50%

-3.36%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.79%

-20.40%

-2.39%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-36.39%

-20.40%

-15.99%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.39%

-42.37%

+5.98%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.28%

-0.76%

+0.48%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.37%

-5.66%

+0.29%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.43%

2.63%

+0.80%

Volatility

ZQQ.TO vs. CIF.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity (CAD Hedged) (ZQQ.TO) is 4.54%, while iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) has a volatility of 5.85%. This indicates that ZQQ.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CIF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ZQQ.TOCIF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.54%

5.85%

-1.31%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.02%

12.44%

-0.42%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.73%

15.23%

+0.50%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.57%

14.56%

+8.01%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.41%

16.69%

+5.72%

ZQQ.TO vs. CIF.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZQQ.TO has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than CIF.TO's 0.72% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZQQ.TO vs. CIF.TO - Dividend Comparison

ZQQ.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.22%, less than CIF.TO's 1.77% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		1.77%2.05%2.84%2.36%2.53%2.24%2.06%1.83%2.45%2.27%1.81%2.41%
ZQQ.TO
BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity (CAD Hedged)		0.22%0.27%0.37%0.32%0.45%0.14%0.41%0.51%0.64%0.57%1.60%0.81%

Frequently Asked Questions

ZQQ.TO and CIF.TO have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

ZQQ.TO is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CIF.TO.

ZQQ.TO is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while CIF.TO is Energy Equities. ZQQ.TO tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while CIF.TO tracks Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index. They also come from different issuers: BMO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ZQQ.TO and 0.72% for CIF.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ZQQ.TO and CIF.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