PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ZWB.TO vs. CIC.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ZWB.TO vs. CIC.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BMO Covered Call Canadian Banks ETF (ZWB.TO) and CI Canadian Banks Covered Call Income Class ETF (CIC.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with ZWB.TO having a 16.23% return and CIC.TO slightly lower at 16.07%. Over the past 10 years, ZWB.TO has underperformed CIC.TO with an annualized return of 12.24%, while CIC.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 12.90% annualized return.


ZWB.TO

1D
-0.31%
1M
5.06%
YTD
16.23%
6M
21.03%
1Y
49.97%
3Y*
25.69%
5Y*
13.82%
10Y*
12.24%

CIC.TO

1D
-0.40%
1M
4.82%
YTD
16.07%
6M
20.80%
1Y
49.89%
3Y*
26.94%
5Y*
14.52%
10Y*
12.90%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ZWB.TO vs. CIC.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ZWB.TO
BMO Covered Call Canadian Banks ETF
16.23%34.91%19.41%6.67%-11.00%30.81%1.68%14.32%-8.08%11.52%
CIC.TO
CI Canadian Banks Covered Call Income Class ETF
16.07%36.24%21.30%6.58%-10.99%33.76%1.89%14.12%-8.88%12.14%

Correlation

The correlation between ZWB.TO and CIC.TO is 0.94, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


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

0.94

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

0.94

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

0.95

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

0.93

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2011

0.79

The correlation between ZWB.TO and CIC.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.79 (all time) to 0.95 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ZWB.TO vs. CIC.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ZWB.TO
CIC.TO

Financial Services

100.0%
100.0%

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

ZWB.TO
100.0%
CIC.TO
100.0%

Basic Materials

ZWB.TO

-

CIC.TO

-

Communication Services

ZWB.TO

-

CIC.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

ZWB.TO

-

CIC.TO

-

Consumer Defensive

ZWB.TO

-

CIC.TO

-

Energy

ZWB.TO

-

CIC.TO

-

Healthcare

ZWB.TO

-

CIC.TO

-

Industrials

ZWB.TO

-

CIC.TO

-

Real Estate

ZWB.TO

-

CIC.TO

-

Technology

ZWB.TO

-

CIC.TO

-

Utilities

ZWB.TO

-

CIC.TO

-

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

ZWB.TO vs. CIC.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZWB.TO
ZWB.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9595
Overall Rank
ZWB.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9696
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZWB.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9797
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZWB.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9797
Omega Ratio Rank
ZWB.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9292
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZWB.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
Martin Ratio Rank

CIC.TO
CIC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9595
Overall Rank
CIC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9696
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9797
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9797
Omega Ratio Rank
CIC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9292
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
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.

ZWB.TO vs. CIC.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Covered Call Canadian Banks ETF (ZWB.TO) and CI Canadian Banks Covered Call Income Class ETF (CIC.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.


ZWB.TOCIC.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.02

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.86

1.87

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

6.42

6.09

+0.33

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

28.83

28.56

+0.27

ZWB.TO vs. CIC.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZWB.TO Sharpe Ratio is 4.44, which is comparable to the CIC.TO Sharpe Ratio of 4.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZWB.TO and CIC.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


ZWB.TOCIC.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.44

4.45

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.10

1.15

-0.04

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.78

0.80

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.74

0.69

+0.05

Drawdowns

ZWB.TO vs. CIC.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZWB.TO drawdown since its inception was -39.36%, roughly equal to the maximum CIC.TO drawdown of -38.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZWB.TO and CIC.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ZWB.TOCIC.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-39.36%

-38.55%

-0.81%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.82%

-8.23%

+0.41%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.05%

-14.32%

+0.27%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.26%

-26.34%

+1.08%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.36%

-38.55%

-0.81%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.85%

-1.58%

-0.27%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.56%

-5.49%

-0.07%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.74%

1.75%

-0.01%

Volatility

ZWB.TO vs. CIC.TO - Volatility Comparison

BMO Covered Call Canadian Banks ETF (ZWB.TO) has a higher volatility of 4.26% compared to CI Canadian Banks Covered Call Income Class ETF (CIC.TO) at 4.00%. This indicates that ZWB.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CIC.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ZWB.TOCIC.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.26%

4.00%

+0.26%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.03%

9.95%

+0.08%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.31%

11.26%

+0.05%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.63%

12.75%

-0.12%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.68%

16.29%

-0.61%

ZWB.TO vs. CIC.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZWB.TO has a 0.71% expense ratio, which is lower than CIC.TO's 0.87% expense ratio.


Dividends

ZWB.TO vs. CIC.TO - Dividend Comparison

ZWB.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.02%, less than CIC.TO's 5.25% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CIC.TO
CI Canadian Banks Covered Call Income Class ETF
5.25%5.72%6.71%7.37%7.64%5.48%9.56%6.16%6.61%5.68%6.72%7.31%
ZWB.TO
BMO Covered Call Canadian Banks ETF
5.02%5.38%6.66%7.62%7.30%5.46%5.80%5.53%5.59%4.80%5.04%5.64%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.94, ZWB.TO and CIC.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, ZWB.TO is cheaper at 0.71% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ZWB.TO is cheaper with a 0.71% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for CIC.TO.

They also come from different issuers: BMO and CI. Their fees differ too: 0.71% for ZWB.TO and 0.87% for CIC.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ZWB.TO and CIC.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