When evaluating costs, RNAV features a management fee (MER) of 0.6%, compared to 0.2% for ZEA. Performance-wise, RNAV has returned 12.63% year-to-date with +$40 M in net flows, whereas ZEA is at 10.77% with +$1 B. 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
RNAV
ZEA
| AuM | $109.34 M | $13,583.57 M |
| Management Fees | 0.60% | 0.20% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.80% | 0.22% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.85% |
Historical performance and flows
As of October 23, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | RNAV | +0.48% | +1.68% | +12.63% | +15.78% | +81.44% |
ZEA | -2.79% | -0.86% | +10.77% | +11.86% | +71.53% | |
| Flows | RNAV | +$4 M | +$10 M | +$40 M | +$17 M | +$81 M |
ZEA | +$339 M | +$691 M | +$1,303 M | +$1,445 M | +$3,222 M |
RNAV vs ZEA exposure
Countries
RNAV
Exposure data will be available soon
ZEA
Japan
25.53%
United Kingdom
13.47%
Switzerland
9.03%
Germany
8.08%
France
7.96%
Australia
7.14%
Other
28.78%
Sectors
RNAV
Exposure data will be available soon
ZEA
Finance
27.10%
Industrials
16.18%
Technology
12.71%
Healthcare
9.12%
Non-Energy Materials
7.86%
Consumer Non-Cyclicals
7.73%
Other
19.29%
As of October 23, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
RNAV
Exposure data will be available soon
ZEA
ASML Holding NV
2.51%
HSBC Holdings Plc
1.35%
Roche Holding AG
1.17%
Novartis AG
1.07%
Shell Plc
0.97%
Nestlé SA
0.96%
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.
0.94%
AstraZeneca PLC
0.94%
BHP Group Ltd.
0.93%
Siemens AG
0.92%
Diversification
RNAV
Exposure data will be available soon
ZEA
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 2,627 total
11.77%
Characteristics
Compare
RNAV
ZEA
| Provider | RBC Global Asset Management | BMO |
| Management | Actively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | - | MSCI EAFE Net Total Return Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | - | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Equity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 1.18% | 1.99% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | March 8, 2023 | February 10, 2014 |
Frequently asked questions about RNAV and ZEA
Which ETF has performed better year to date: RNAV or ZEA?
As of October 23, 2026, RNAV has returned 12.63% year to date, while ZEA has returned 10.77%. RNAV is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: RNAV or ZEA?
As of October 23, 2026, RNAV manages $109.34 M in assets, while ZEA manages $13.58 B. ZEA is the larger fund by AUM.
How are RNAV and ZEA managed?
RNAV is actively managed by RBC Global Asset Management. It does not track an index. ZEA is passively managed by BMO. It tracks the MSCI EAFE Net Total Return Index - CAD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: RNAV or ZEA?
Year to date, RNAV has seen +$39.56 M in net flows, compared with +$1,303.48 M for ZEA. ZEA has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of RNAV and ZEA compare?
RNAV has an expense ratio of 0.80%, while ZEA has an expense ratio of 0.22%.
Recent articles about RNAV and ZEA
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.