VS
When evaluating costs, GDIV features a management fee (MER) of 0.35%, compared to 0.85% for ZGDV. Performance-wise, GDIV has returned 20.99% year-to-date with +$80 M in net flows, whereas ZGDV is at 12.98% with +$0 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
GDIV
ZGDV
| AuM | $100.49 M | $1.99 M |
| Management Fees | 0.35% | 0.85% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.37% | 0.85% |
| Tracking Difference | - | - |
Historical performance and flows
As of November 11, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | GDIV | +0.16% | -0.77% | +20.99% | +19.46% | +75.23% |
ZGDV | +0.91% | +2.76% | +12.98% | +12.19% | +78.51% | |
| Flows | GDIV | +$6 M | +$21 M | +$80 M | +$84 M | +$78 M |
ZGDV | +$0 M | +$0 M | +$0 M | +$0 M | -$1 M |
GDIV vs ZGDV exposure
Countries
GDIV
Other
100.00%
ZGDV
USA
66.29%
United Kingdom
13.90%
Other
19.81%
Sectors
GDIV
Other
100.00%
ZGDV
Finance
31.98%
Technology
25.62%
Healthcare
11.46%
Consumer Non-Cyclicals
11.03%
Industrials
8.21%
Other
11.71%
As of November 11, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
GDIV
CA56503P1080
68.05%
CA56503T1003
24.06%
CA56502U1084
5.64%
CA56502Q1072
2.01%
ZGDV
NVIDIA Corp.
4.15%
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
3.36%
Alphabet, Inc.
2.71%
Philip Morris International, Inc.
2.65%
AIA Group Ltd.
2.60%
Eli Lilly & Co.
2.57%
Bridgepoint Group Plc
2.56%
NatWest Group Plc
2.55%
Equitable Holdings, Inc.
2.49%
Shell Plc
2.44%
Diversification
GDIV
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 4 total
99.76%
ZGDV
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 76 total
28.10%
Characteristics
Compare
GDIV
ZGDV
| Provider | Manulife Investments | BMO |
| Management | Actively managed | Actively managed |
| Benchmark | - | - |
| Replication Method | - | - |
| Asset Class | Equity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 1.47% | 1.54% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | May 15, 2023 | October 2, 2023 |
Frequently asked questions about GDIV and ZGDV
Which ETF has performed better year to date: GDIV or ZGDV?
As of November 11, 2026, GDIV has returned 20.99% year to date, while ZGDV has returned 12.98%. GDIV is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: GDIV or ZGDV?
As of November 11, 2026, GDIV manages $100.49 M in assets, while ZGDV manages $1.99 M. GDIV is the larger fund by AUM.
How are GDIV and ZGDV managed?
GDIV is actively managed by Manulife Investments. It does not track an index. ZGDV is actively managed by BMO. It does not track an index.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: GDIV or ZGDV?
Year to date, GDIV has seen +$79.75 M in net flows, compared with +$0.01 M for ZGDV. GDIV has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of GDIV and ZGDV compare?
GDIV has an expense ratio of 0.37%, while ZGDV has an expense ratio of 0.85%.
Which ETF is more diversified: GDIV or ZGDV?
GDIV holds 1 securities, while ZGDV holds 76. On holdings count, ZGDV is the more diversified portfolio.
Recent articles about GDIV and ZGDV
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.