VS
When evaluating costs, MSFY features a management fee (MER) of 0.4%, compared to 0.55% for ZUT. Performance-wise, MSFY has returned 0.69% year-to-date with +$20 M in net flows, whereas ZUT is at 23.02% with -$85 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
MSFY
ZUT
| AuM | $40.47 M | $895.68 M |
| Management Fees | 0.40% | 0.55% |
| Exp. ratio | 1.75% | 0.61% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.71% |
Historical performance and flows
As of November 11, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | MSFY | -3.80% | +4.96% | +0.69% | -5.17% | - |
ZUT | +6.90% | +4.07% | +23.02% | +15.79% | +77.42% | |
| Flows | MSFY | -$1 M | -$5 M | +$20 M | +$16 M | - |
ZUT | -$19 M | +$15 M | -$85 M | -$31 M | +$227 M |
MSFY vs ZUT exposure
Countries
MSFY
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Canada
83.93%
Bermuda
16.07%
Sectors
MSFY
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Utilities
83.24%
Energy
8.44%
Industrials
8.32%
As of November 11, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
MSFY
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Northland Power, Inc.
9.17%
TransAlta Corp.
8.59%
ATCO Ltd.
8.53%
AltaGas Ltd.
8.44%
Canadian Utilities Ltd.
8.43%
Fortis, Inc.
8.34%
Brookfield Infrastructure Partners LP
8.32%
Capital Power Corp.
8.27%
Emera, Inc.
8.26%
Hydro One Ltd.
8.15%
Diversification
MSFY
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 12 total
84.50%
Characteristics
Compare
MSFY
ZUT
| Provider | Purpose Investments | BMO |
| Management | Actively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | - | Solactive Equal Weight Canada Utilities Total Return Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | - | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Equity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 12.81% | 2.71% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | January 18, 2024 | January 19, 2010 |
Frequently asked questions about MSFY and ZUT
Which ETF has performed better year to date: MSFY or ZUT?
As of November 11, 2026, MSFY has returned 0.69% year to date, while ZUT has returned 23.02%. ZUT is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: MSFY or ZUT?
As of November 11, 2026, MSFY manages $40.47 M in assets, while ZUT manages $895.68 M. ZUT is the larger fund by AUM.
How are MSFY and ZUT managed?
MSFY is actively managed by Purpose Investments. 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: MSFY or ZUT?
Year to date, MSFY has seen +$20.43 M in net flows, compared with -$84.86 M for ZUT. MSFY has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of MSFY and ZUT compare?
MSFY has an expense ratio of 1.75%, while ZUT has an expense ratio of 0.61%.
Recent articles about MSFY and ZUT
Yield-focused ETFs and the Benefit They Can Provide Investors
ETFs that employ covered call-writing strategies can be effective ways to generate monthly yield for investors while still providing exposure to a security or asset class on a long-term basis.
Posted on 6/13/2024 by Kyle Anthony inStock Market
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.