VS
When evaluating costs, CCOM features a management fee (MER) of 0.52%, compared to 0.55% for ZUT. Performance-wise, CCOM has returned 21.04% year-to-date with +$181 M in net flows, whereas ZUT is at 13.01% with -$53 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
CCOM
ZUT
| AuM | $393.91 M | $857.68 M |
| Management Fees | 0.52% | 0.55% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.66% | 0.61% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.80% |
Historical performance and flows
As of September 21, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | CCOM | +2.37% | +8.31% | +21.04% | +26.51% | +27.97% |
ZUT | -1.97% | -6.56% | +13.01% | +16.71% | +52.56% | |
| Flows | CCOM | +$37 M | +$51 M | +$181 M | +$214 M | +$241 M |
ZUT | +$60 M | +$70 M | -$53 M | -$59 M | +$266 M |
CCOM vs ZUT exposure
Countries
CCOM
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Canada
84.41%
Bermuda
15.59%
Sectors
CCOM
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Utilities
83.73%
Energy
8.32%
Industrials
7.95%
As of September 21, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
CCOM
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
CCOM
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 13 total
79.21%
Characteristics
Compare
CCOM
ZUT
| Provider | CI | BMO |
| Management | Passively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | Auspice Broad Commodity Excess Return Index - USD | Solactive Equal Weight Canada Utilities Total Return Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Commodity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 12.47% | 2.92% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | September 22, 2022 | January 19, 2010 |
Frequently asked questions about CCOM and ZUT
Which ETF has performed better year to date: CCOM or ZUT?
As of September 21, 2026, CCOM has returned 21.04% year to date, while ZUT has returned 13.01%. CCOM is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: CCOM or ZUT?
As of September 21, 2026, CCOM manages $393.91 M in assets, while ZUT manages $857.68 M. ZUT is the larger fund by AUM.
How are CCOM and ZUT managed?
CCOM is passively managed by CI. It tracks the Auspice Broad Commodity Excess Return 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: CCOM or ZUT?
Year to date, CCOM has seen +$181.40 M in net flows, compared with -$52.99 M for ZUT. CCOM has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of CCOM and ZUT compare?
CCOM has an expense ratio of 0.66%, while ZUT has an expense ratio of 0.61%.
Recent articles about CCOM 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.