VS
When evaluating costs, ICGB features a management fee (MER) of 0.55%, compared to 0.55% for ZUT. Performance-wise, ICGB has returned 4.85% year-to-date with -$17 M in net flows, whereas ZUT is at 14.97% with -$71 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
ICGB
ZUT
| AuM | $140.14 M | $851.92 M |
| Management Fees | 0.55% | 0.55% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.62% | 0.61% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.73% |
Historical performance and flows
As of October 19, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | ICGB | -1.18% | -2.65% | -4.85% | -5.95% | - |
ZUT | +1.74% | -5.96% | +14.97% | +8.04% | +73.68% | |
| Flows | ICGB | -$0 M | -$1 M | -$17 M | -$21 M | - |
ZUT | +$26 M | +$54 M | -$71 M | +$1 M | +$255 M |
ICGB vs ZUT exposure
Countries
ICGB
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Canada
82.83%
Bermuda
17.17%
Sectors
ICGB
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Utilities
82.26%
Energy
9.30%
Industrials
8.44%
As of October 19, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
ICGB
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
AltaGas Ltd.
9.30%
ATCO Ltd.
9.15%
Canadian Utilities Ltd.
8.78%
Brookfield Renewable Partners LP
8.73%
Capital Power Corp.
8.69%
Brookfield Infrastructure Partners LP
8.44%
Northland Power, Inc.
8.00%
TransAlta Corp.
7.98%
Emera, Inc.
7.97%
Fortis, Inc.
7.90%
Diversification
ICGB
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 12 total
84.93%
Characteristics
Compare
ICGB
ZUT
| Provider | Invesco | 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 | 0.00% | 2.88% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | August 15, 2024 | January 19, 2010 |
Frequently asked questions about ICGB and ZUT
Which ETF has performed better year to date: ICGB or ZUT?
As of October 19, 2026, ICGB has returned -4.85% year to date, while ZUT has returned 14.97%. ZUT is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: ICGB or ZUT?
As of October 19, 2026, ICGB manages $140.14 M in assets, while ZUT manages $851.92 M. ZUT is the larger fund by AUM.
How are ICGB and ZUT managed?
ICGB is actively managed by Invesco. 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: ICGB or ZUT?
Year to date, ICGB has seen -$16.69 M in net flows, compared with -$71.38 M for ZUT. ICGB has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of ICGB and ZUT compare?
ICGB has an expense ratio of 0.62%, while ZUT has an expense ratio of 0.61%.
Recent articles about ICGB 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.