ZPR vs CPD: Which Canadian Preferred Share ETF Actually Fits You?

September 2026

Canada's preferred share market finally has real choice. Three ETFs offer one-ticket
exposure, and two of them — CPD (the iShares S&P/TSX Preferred Share Index ETF) and
ZPR (the BMO Laddered Preferred Share Index ETF) — get compared constantly, usually
with the question phrased as "which one is better?"

The honest answer: neither is better in the abstract. They are built differently, and
the right pick depends on what you want the money to do. Here's how they actually
differ — including one cost quirk that most comparisons skip, and an option almost
nobody considers that quietly leaves both of them behind.

The head-to-head

| | CPD | ZPR |
|---|---|---|
| Manager | BlackRock (iShares) | BMO |
| Approach | Market-cap weighted — mirrors the whole market | Equal-weighted across five maturity buckets |
| Assets | Larger — the most liquid choice | Meaningfully smaller |
| Annual fee (MER) | 0.50% | 0.53% |
| Distribution | Monthly | Monthly |

Both hold real Canadian preferred shares — the same bank, utility and pipeline names
dominate both rosters. Our holdings pages for CPD and ZPR
list their largest positions with links to the data page for every single one.

The structural difference that actually matters

CPD weights each holding by its size in the overall market. The practical result:
the fund leans hard into the biggest issuers — the large banks and utilities that
dominate the preferred share index — and automatically adds new issues as they list.
You get "the market" as it exists today, for better and worse.

ZPR takes a different tack: it sorts its holdings into five maturity buckets and
weights each bucket equally. That tilts the fund toward shares whose dividend rates
reset sooner. In a rising-rate environment, a nearer reset date is a feature, not
a bug — the dividend reprices upward sooner rather than being stuck for years. If
rates fall, the same feature works in reverse. Laddering is a hedge on the direction
of rates, not a free lunch.

So the first question isn't "CPD or ZPR" — it's what do you think rates do next?
If you have a view, one structure expresses it better than the other. If you don't,
either fund is a reasonable single decision.

The fee math nobody shows you

The MERs look small side by side — 0.50% vs 0.53% feels like a rounding error. Scale
checks that instinct:

| Invested | CPD fee/yr | ZPR fee/yr | Over 10 years (CPD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $10,000 | ~$50 | ~$53 | ~$535 |
| $50,000 | ~$250 | ~$265 | ~$2,675 |
| $100,000 | ~$500 | ~$530 | ~$5,350 |

(MER is deducted from the fund's assets before distributions are paid — it never
arrives as a bill, which is exactly why it's easy to dismiss. Add the compounded
effect over a decade and a half of retirement-style holding and the fee conversation
gets more interesting.)

There's a third option that makes both fee lines disappear entirely — more on that in
a moment.

What they hold — the same names, weighted differently

Look at the two rosters and you'll find striking overlap. Both funds' largest positions
include Fortis Series M, TC Energy redeemables, BCE preferreds, Enbridge series, and
National Bank resets. The difference is how much of each:

CPD's weight in a name roughly follows its market size

ZPR's laddering redistributes that weight across the maturity curve

(A third fund, HPR, holds many of the same names again — actively chosen — but

carries the highest fee of the three at 0.69%, and that manager's judgment is
itself the product you're buying)

Our overview page lays out the top holdings of all three funds side by side
so you can see exactly where the two passive funds agree and disagree.

The option almost nobody mentions

Every comparison ends by awarding one of the two funds as the "winner." We'll close it
differently, because there's a possibility both ETFs quietly price away from you:

You can hold the exact same names directly — with no annual fee at all.

Every share inside CPD and ZPR trades individually on the TSX. When you own a
preferred share directly, the dividend it pays is the dividend you receive; there is
no ongoing management expense carved out of it, year after year, the way an ETF's is.
A commission gets you in; after that, your yield is your yield.

What you give up is automation: an ETF handles credit risk by diversifying across
dozens of series, while a direct holder has to pay attention — reset dates, credit
ratings, redemption features. That's a real trade-off, and it's the honest reason
funds exist.

But if you're willing to do a little of that checking yourself, the information is now
freely available. Our database of every Canadian preferred share covers
the full universe — current yields, reset dates, credit ratings, issue terms — the
same raw facts these fund managers weight for you at 0.50% a year. [Compare the
shares side by side yourself](/preferreds) and see whether the basket is really
earning what it charges.

Bottom line

Rates rising (or you think so) → ZPR's laddered resets are the better structural fit

You just want "the market" in one ticket → CPD, bigger and marginally cheaper

Willing to pick your own series → the shares inside both funds are right there —

no annual fee, and dividend income that's entirely yours

---

*This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not
constitute financial, investment, tax, or legal advice. Fund fees are subject to
change; verify current figures with the fund manager before investing. Consult a
licensed financial advisor before making investment decisions. The site is not
affiliated with any fund manager; tickers are used for identification only. Past
performance is not indicative of future results.*