VS
When evaluating costs, GRCC features a management fee (MER) of 0.49%, compared to 0.55% for ZUT. Performance-wise, GRCC has returned 10.15% year-to-date with +$8 M in net flows, whereas ZUT is at 22.38% with -$121 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
GRCC
ZUT
| AuM | $20.15 M | $860.02 M |
| Management Fees | 0.49% | 0.55% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.65% | 0.61% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.85% |
Historical performance and flows
As of July 21, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | GRCC | -0.53% | +6.69% | +10.15% | +19.05% | - |
ZUT | +1.18% | +8.31% | +22.38% | +26.05% | +52.51% | |
| Flows | GRCC | +$1 M | +$2 M | +$8 M | +$8 M | - |
ZUT | +$1 M | -$61 M | -$121 M | -$44 M | +$191 M |
GRCC vs ZUT exposure
Countries
GRCC
Other
100.00%
ZUT
Canada
84.68%
Bermuda
15.32%
Sectors
GRCC
Other
100.00%
ZUT
Utilities
85.04%
Energy
7.95%
Industrials
7.01%
As of July 21, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
GRCC
CA37964A1030
27.55%
CA37962B1031
20.21%
CA3799261084
18.15%
CA37964D1078
17.05%
CA37955S1056
7.26%
CA37962P1027
5.95%
CA37893D1033
3.55%
ZUT
Boralex, Inc.
9.46%
Capital Power Corp.
8.42%
Brookfield Renewable Partners LP
8.31%
AltaGas Ltd.
7.95%
ATCO Ltd.
7.77%
TransAlta Corp.
7.74%
Canadian Utilities Ltd.
7.65%
Emera, Inc.
7.38%
Fortis, Inc.
7.23%
Northland Power, Inc.
7.14%
Diversification
GRCC
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 7 total
99.72%
ZUT
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 13 total
79.05%
Characteristics
Compare
GRCC
ZUT
| Provider | Global X | BMO |
| Management | Actively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | - | Solactive Equal Weight Canada Utilities Total Return Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | |
| Asset Class | Equity, Fixed Income | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 8.37% | 2.71% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | October 10, 2023 | January 19, 2010 |
Frequently asked questions about GRCC and ZUT
Which ETF has performed better year to date: GRCC or ZUT?
As of July 21, 2026, GRCC has returned 10.15% year to date, while ZUT has returned 22.38%. ZUT is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: GRCC or ZUT?
As of July 21, 2026, GRCC manages $20.15 M in assets, while ZUT manages $860.02 M. ZUT is the larger fund by AUM.
How are GRCC and ZUT managed?
GRCC is actively managed by Global X. 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: GRCC or ZUT?
Year to date, GRCC has seen +$8.00 M in net flows, compared with -$121.13 M for ZUT. GRCC has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of GRCC and ZUT compare?
GRCC has an expense ratio of 0.65%, while ZUT has an expense ratio of 0.61%.
Which ETF is more diversified: GRCC or ZUT?
GRCC holds 1 securities, while ZUT holds 13. On holdings count, ZUT is the more diversified portfolio.
Recent articles about GRCC 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.