VS
When evaluating costs, FCGB features a management fee (MER) of 0.5%, compared to 0.55% for ZUT. Performance-wise, FCGB has returned 0.7% year-to-date with +$170 M in net flows, whereas ZUT is at 14.87% with -$60 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
FCGB
ZUT
| AuM | $1,609.17 M | $871.63 M |
| Management Fees | 0.50% | 0.55% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.56% | 0.61% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.74% |
Historical performance and flows
As of April 20, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | FCGB | +1.40% | +0.77% | +0.70% | +4.12% | +4.88% |
ZUT | +5.79% | +12.13% | +14.87% | +32.96% | +39.48% | |
| Flows | FCGB | +$21 M | +$146 M | +$170 M | +$396 M | +$866 M |
ZUT | +$17 M | -$54 M | -$60 M | +$124 M | +$258 M |
FCGB vs ZUT exposure
Countries
FCGB
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Canada
82.74%
Bermuda
17.26%
Sectors
FCGB
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Utilities
100.00%
As of April 20, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
FCGB
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
BROOKFIELD INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS LP UNIT
8.73%
ATCO
8.70%
BROOKFIELD RENEWABLE PARTNERS
8.53%
CANADIAN UTILITIES
8.28%
ALGONQUIN POWER
8.23%
HYDRO ONE
7.94%
FORTIS
7.66%
ALTAGAS
7.40%
EMERA
7.26%
CAPITAL POWER
7.12%
Diversification
FCGB
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 13 total
79.85%
Characteristics
Compare
FCGB
ZUT
| Provider | Fidelity | BMO |
| Management | Actively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | - | Solactive Equal Weight Canada Utilities Total Return Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | |
| Asset Class | Fixed Income | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 3.20% | 2.94% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | September 25, 2019 | January 19, 2010 |
Frequently asked questions about FCGB and ZUT
Which ETF has performed better year to date: FCGB or ZUT?
As of April 20, 2026, FCGB has returned 0.70% year to date, while ZUT has returned 14.87%. ZUT is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: FCGB or ZUT?
As of April 20, 2026, FCGB manages $1.61 B in assets, while ZUT manages $871.63 M. FCGB is the larger fund by AUM.
How are FCGB and ZUT managed?
FCGB is actively managed by Fidelity. It does not track an index. 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: FCGB or ZUT?
Year to date, FCGB has seen +$169.81 M in net flows, compared with -$60.16 M for ZUT. FCGB has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of FCGB and ZUT compare?
FCGB has an expense ratio of 0.56%, while ZUT has an expense ratio of 0.61%.
Recent articles about FCGB and ZUT
Fidelity Investments Canada welcomes 12 ETFs to Cboe Canada
Fidelity Investments Canada increases their ETF offerings on Cboe Canada.
Posted on 4/12/2024 by Kyle Anthony inETF Ecosystem
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.