VS
When evaluating costs, RGQT features a management fee (MER) of 0.15%, compared to 0.55% for ZUT. Performance-wise, RGQT has returned 1.07% year-to-date with +$70 M in net flows, whereas ZUT is at 22.01% with -$126 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
RGQT
ZUT
| AuM | $116.99 M | $852.91 M |
| Management Fees | 0.15% | 0.55% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.17% | 0.61% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.85% |
Historical performance and flows
As of July 17, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | RGQT | -0.18% | +0.24% | +1.07% | +3.80% | - |
ZUT | +1.71% | +5.71% | +22.01% | +27.22% | +54.59% | |
| Flows | RGQT | +$1 M | +$15 M | +$70 M | +$105 M | - |
ZUT | -$60 M | -$66 M | -$126 M | -$42 M | +$188 M |
RGQT vs ZUT exposure
Countries
RGQT
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Canada
83.77%
Bermuda
16.23%
Sectors
RGQT
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Utilities
84.34%
Energy
8.20%
Industrials
7.46%
As of July 17, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
RGQT
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Boralex, Inc.
9.57%
Brookfield Renewable Partners LP
8.77%
AltaGas Ltd.
8.20%
Capital Power Corp.
8.05%
TransAlta Corp.
7.83%
Northland Power, Inc.
7.73%
Brookfield Infrastructure Partners LP
7.46%
Canadian Utilities Ltd.
7.33%
ATCO Ltd.
7.25%
Emera, Inc.
7.16%
Diversification
RGQT
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 13 total
79.35%
Characteristics
Compare
RGQT
ZUT
| Provider | RBC Global Asset Management | 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 | 1.78% | 2.72% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | April 1, 2025 | January 19, 2010 |
Frequently asked questions about RGQT and ZUT
Which ETF has performed better year to date: RGQT or ZUT?
As of July 17, 2026, RGQT has returned 1.07% year to date, while ZUT has returned 22.01%. ZUT is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: RGQT or ZUT?
As of July 17, 2026, RGQT manages $116.99 M in assets, while ZUT manages $852.91 M. ZUT is the larger fund by AUM.
How are RGQT and ZUT managed?
RGQT is actively managed by RBC Global Asset Management. 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: RGQT or ZUT?
Year to date, RGQT has seen +$70.11 M in net flows, compared with -$125.69 M for ZUT. RGQT has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of RGQT and ZUT compare?
RGQT has an expense ratio of 0.17%, while ZUT has an expense ratio of 0.61%.
Recent articles about RGQT 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.