VS
When evaluating costs, BTCC features a management fee (MER) of 1%, compared to 0.55% for ZUT. Performance-wise, BTCC has returned 14.31% year-to-date with -$32 M in net flows, whereas ZUT is at 11.61% with -$95 M. Use the comparison tool below to benchmark these funds across top 10 holdings, yield, sector weights and historical returns.
NAV Performance and Flows
Key Data
Compare
BTCC
ZUT
| AuM | $647.68 M | $805.63 M |
| Management Fees | 1.00% | 0.55% |
| Exp. ratio | 1.30% | 0.61% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.80% |
Historical performance and flows
As of September 11, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | BTCC | +21.09% | +20.32% | -14.31% | -35.06% | +180.79% |
ZUT | -5.59% | -7.33% | +11.61% | +17.34% | +47.29% | |
| Flows | BTCC | -$10 M | -$17 M | -$32 M | -$23 M | +$45 M |
ZUT | +$5 M | -$17 M | -$95 M | -$106 M | +$217 M |
BTCC vs ZUT exposure
Countries
BTCC
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Canada
84.41%
Bermuda
15.59%
Sectors
BTCC
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Utilities
83.73%
Energy
8.32%
Industrials
7.95%
As of September 11, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
BTCC
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Boralex, Inc.
9.47%
ATCO Ltd.
8.45%
AltaGas Ltd.
8.32%
Canadian Utilities Ltd.
8.09%
Brookfield Infrastructure Partners LP
7.95%
Capital Power Corp.
7.68%
Brookfield Renewable Partners LP
7.64%
Emera, Inc.
7.35%
TransAlta Corp.
7.18%
Northland Power, Inc.
7.08%
Diversification
BTCC
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 13 total
79.21%
Characteristics
Compare
BTCC
ZUT
| Provider | Purpose Investments | BMO |
| Management | Passively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | CoinDesk Bitcoin Price Index - USD | Solactive Equal Weight Canada Utilities Total Return Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Cryptocurrencies | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | No income | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 0.00% | 2.96% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | February 11, 2021 | January 19, 2010 |
Frequently asked questions about BTCC and ZUT
Which ETF has performed better year to date: BTCC or ZUT?
As of September 11, 2026, BTCC has returned -14.31% year to date, while ZUT has returned 11.61%. ZUT is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: BTCC or ZUT?
As of September 11, 2026, BTCC manages $647.68 M in assets, while ZUT manages $805.63 M. ZUT is the larger fund by AUM.
How are BTCC and ZUT managed?
BTCC is passively managed by Purpose Investments. It tracks the CoinDesk Bitcoin Price Index - USD benchmark. ZUT is passively managed by BMO. It tracks the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Utilities Total Return Index - CAD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: BTCC or ZUT?
Year to date, BTCC has seen -$32.14 M in net flows, compared with -$94.91 M for ZUT. BTCC has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of BTCC and ZUT compare?
BTCC has an expense ratio of 1.30%, while ZUT has an expense ratio of 0.61%.
Recent articles about BTCC and ZUT
The ETF Market Canada is brought to you by Cboe in partnership with Trackinsight SA who is providing all the data, analysis and editorial content on this site. Unless explicitly stated as such, any information that you receive is not real-time.
All content on the ETF Market Canada is for your general information use only, Cboe is not responsible for any use of content by you outside this scope. In particular, the content does not constitute any form of advice, recommendation, representation, endorsement or arrangement by Cboe and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any specific investment or other decisions.
All content on the ETF Market Canada is for your general information use only, Cboe is not responsible for any use of content by you outside this scope. In particular, the content does not constitute any form of advice, recommendation, representation, endorsement or arrangement by Cboe and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any specific investment or other decisions.