VS
When evaluating costs, HISA features a management fee (MER) of 0.15%, compared to 0.55% for ZUT. Performance-wise, HISA has returned 0.68% year-to-date with +$95 M in net flows, whereas ZUT is at 15.32% 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
HISA
ZUT
| AuM | $1,302.79 M | $873.00 M |
| Management Fees | 0.15% | 0.55% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.17% | 0.61% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.85% |
Historical performance and flows
As of April 30, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | HISA | +0.18% | +0.51% | +0.68% | +2.33% | +11.70% |
ZUT | -0.63% | +12.47% | +15.32% | +28.73% | +38.60% | |
| Flows | HISA | +$62 M | +$90 M | +$95 M | -$58 M | -$169 M |
ZUT | +$25 M | -$37 M | -$60 M | +$129 M | +$254 M |
HISA vs ZUT exposure
Countries
HISA
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Canada
85.16%
Bermuda
14.84%
Sectors
HISA
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Utilities
100.00%
As of April 30, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
HISA
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
BORALEX
9.91%
NORTHLAND POWER
7.97%
BROOKFIELD RENEWABLE PARTNERS
7.84%
CAPITAL POWER
7.84%
ALTAGAS
7.70%
ATCO
7.53%
ALGONQUIN POWER
7.52%
TRANSALTA
7.49%
EMERA
7.42%
CANADIAN UTILITIES
7.38%
Diversification
HISA
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 13 total
78.61%
Characteristics
Compare
HISA
ZUT
| Provider | Evolve ETFs | 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 | 2.30% | 2.91% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | November 21, 2019 | January 19, 2010 |
Frequently asked questions about HISA and ZUT
Which ETF has performed better year to date: HISA or ZUT?
As of April 30, 2026, HISA has returned 0.68% year to date, while ZUT has returned 15.32%. ZUT is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: HISA or ZUT?
As of April 30, 2026, HISA manages $1.30 B in assets, while ZUT manages $873.00 M. HISA is the larger fund by AUM.
How are HISA and ZUT managed?
HISA is actively managed by Evolve ETFs. 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: HISA or ZUT?
Year to date, HISA has seen +$95.26 M in net flows, compared with -$60.16 M for ZUT. HISA has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of HISA and ZUT compare?
HISA has an expense ratio of 0.17%, while ZUT has an expense ratio of 0.61%.
Recent articles about HISA and ZUT
High Interest Cash ETFs: All You Need to Know Heading Into 2024
Interest in these ETFs has persisted throughout 2023 amid a "higher for longer" interest rate environment.
Posted on 12/11/2023 by Jean-Charles Senant 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.