PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ZWB.TO vs. FALN
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ZWB.TO vs. FALN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ZWB.TO (BMO Covered Call Canadian Banks ETF) and FALN (iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZWB.TO is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by BMO, while FALN is a High Yield Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Index. ZWB.TO is actively managed, while FALN is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ZWB.TO returned 13.82%/yr vs 6.75%/yr for FALN. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZWB.TO charges 0.71%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FALN.

Performance

ZWB.TO vs. FALN - 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 iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

ZWB.TO is traded in CAD, while FALN is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the FALN values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZWB.TO achieves a 16.23% return, which is significantly higher than FALN's 2.85% 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%

FALN

1D
0.19%
1M
2.69%
YTD
2.85%
6M
0.97%
1Y
10.06%
3Y*
10.45%
5Y*
6.75%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ZWB.TO vs. FALN - 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%
FALN
iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF		2.85%3.93%16.93%10.97%-7.65%4.45%12.91%11.65%3.08%1.78%

Correlation

The correlation between ZWB.TO and FALN is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.22

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

0.18

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

0.09

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 20, 2016

0.11

The correlation between ZWB.TO and FALN shifts across timeframes, from 0.09 (5 years) to 0.22 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ZWB.TO vs. FALN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ZWB.TO
FALN

Financial Services

100.0%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Real Estate

-

100.0%

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

ZWB.TO
100.0%
FALN

-

Basic Materials

ZWB.TO

-

FALN

-

Communication Services

ZWB.TO

-

FALN

-

Consumer Cyclical

ZWB.TO

-

FALN

-

Consumer Defensive

ZWB.TO

-

FALN

-

Energy

ZWB.TO

-

FALN

-

Healthcare

ZWB.TO

-

FALN

-

Industrials

ZWB.TO

-

FALN

-

Real Estate

ZWB.TO

-

FALN
100.0%

Technology

ZWB.TO

-

FALN

-

Utilities

ZWB.TO

-

FALN

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

BMO Covered Call Canadian Banks ETF

iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF

Often compared with ZWB.TO:
ZWB.TO vs. ZEB.TOZWB.TO vs. ZWC.TOZWB.TO vs. VDY.TOZWB.TO vs. VFV.TOZWB.TO vs. XDIV.TOZWB.TO vs. RBNK.TOZWB.TO vs. SRU-UN.TO
Often compared with FALN:
FALN vs. ANGLFALN vs. HYGFALN vs. SCYBFALN vs. IMTBFALN vs. BKLNFALN vs. FLOTFALN vs. DBA

Return for Risk

ZWB.TO vs. FALN — 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
FALN
FALN Risk / Return Rank: 5454
Overall Rank
FALN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FALN Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
FALN Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
FALN Calmar Ratio Rank: 4444
Calmar Ratio Rank
FALN Martin Ratio Rank: 5353
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. FALN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Covered Call Canadian Banks ETF (ZWB.TO) and iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN). 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.TOFALNDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
4.44
1.79

+2.66

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
6.16
2.46

+3.69

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.86

1.34

+0.52

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

6.42

2.24

+4.18

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

28.83

6.71

+22.12

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

ZWB.TO vs. FALN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZWB.TO Sharpe Ratio is 4.44, which is higher than the FALN Sharpe Ratio of 1.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZWB.TO and FALN, 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.TOFALNDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.44

1.79

+2.66

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.10

0.92

+0.18

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.78

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.74

0.86

-0.11

Drawdowns

ZWB.TO vs. FALN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZWB.TO drawdown since its inception was -39.36%, which is greater than FALN's maximum drawdown of -23.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZWB.TO and FALN.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ZWB.TOFALNDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-39.36%

-23.49%

-15.87%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.82%

-4.52%

-3.30%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.05%

-8.30%

-5.75%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.26%

-16.98%

-8.28%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.36%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.85%

0.00%

-1.85%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.56%

-3.11%

-2.45%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.74%

1.50%

+0.24%

Volatility

ZWB.TO vs. FALN - Volatility Comparison

BMO Covered Call Canadian Banks ETF (ZWB.TO) has a higher volatility of 4.26% compared to iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) at 1.32%. This indicates that ZWB.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FALN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ZWB.TOFALNDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.26%

1.32%

+2.94%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.03%

4.62%

+5.41%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.31%

5.66%

+5.65%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.63%

7.35%

+5.28%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.68%

8.68%

+7.00%

ZWB.TO vs. FALN - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZWB.TO has a 0.71% expense ratio, which is higher than FALN's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZWB.TO vs. FALN - Dividend Comparison

ZWB.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.02%, less than FALN's 6.46% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FALN
iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF		6.46%6.31%6.24%5.37%5.08%3.40%5.14%5.35%5.97%6.98%3.55%0.00%
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

ZWB.TO and FALN have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, FALN is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FALN is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.71% for ZWB.TO.

ZWB.TO is categorized as Financials Equities, while FALN is High Yield Bonds. They also come from different issuers: BMO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.71% for ZWB.TO and 0.25% for FALN.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ZWB.TO and FALN

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