Exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, are often low-cost instruments for investors to track popular indexes or leverage experienced manager choices in an attempt to beat the market. The best ones serve as building blocks for a portfolio, and unlike open-end mutual funds, all ETFs are traded throughout the day on an exchange.
In January 2025, the worst performers included Middlefield Sustainable Infrastructure Dividend ETF MINF and Mackenzie China A-Shares CSI 300 Index ETF QCH. Data in this article is sourced from Morningstar Direct.
To read about the best-performing ETFs, check out [INSERT LINK HERE] our other story.
Screening for the Worst-Performing ETFs
To find the month’s worst-performing ETFs, we screened equity, allocation, and fixed income funds that trade within Canada for those that have at least C$10 million in total assets. We narrowed the list to only ETFs with parent pillars for their Morningstar Medalist Ratings of average or above, meaning our analysts believe they’re backed by industry-standard asset management companies. We also excluded exchange traded notes, known as ETNs.
Among the worst-performing ETFs, two were from the natural resources equity category, where funds fell 5.76% in January.
The 10 Worst-Performing ETFs for January 2025
1. Middlefield Sustainable Infrastructure Dividend ETF MINF
2. Mackenzie China A-Shares CSI 300 Index ETF QCH
3. Harvest Clean Energy ETF HCLN
4. Global X Pipelines & Energy Services Index ETF PPLN
5. iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF XBM
6. iShares S&P/TSX Capped REIT Index ETF XRE
7. BMO Equal Weight Global Base Metals Hedged to CAD Index ETF ZMT
8. Global X Active Canadian Dividend ETF HAL
9. iShares S&P/TSX Canadian Dividend Aristocrats Index ETF CDZ
10. Global X Equal Weight Canadian REITs Index Corporate Class ETF HCRE
Metrics for the Worst-Performing ETFs
Middlefield Sustainable Infrastructure Dividend ETF
• Morningstar Rating: ★
• Expense Ratio: 2.37%
• Morningstar Category: Global Infrastructure Equity
The worst-performing ETF in January was the C$24 million Middlefield Sustainable Infrastructure Dividend ETF, which lost 2.87%. The actively managed Middlefield ETF performed roughly in line with the average 2.91% loss on funds in the global infrastructure equity category in January. Over the past 12 months, the Middlefield Sustainable Infrastructure Dividend ETF rose 19.85%, placing it in the 64th percentile within its category and outperforming the 16.78% return on the average fund.
The Middlefield Sustainable Infrastructure Dividend ETF takes environmental, social, and governance criteria into consideration. This fund has a Morningstar Medalist Rating of Silver.
Mackenzie China A-Shares CSI 300 Index ETF
• Morningstar Rating: ★★★★
• Expense Ratio: 0.76%
• Morningstar Category: Greater China Equity
With a 2.18% loss, the C$26 million Mackenzie China A-Shares CSI 300 Index ETF was the second-worst performing ETF on our list for January. The passively managed Mackenzie ETF underperformed the average 3.95% gain on funds in the Greater China equity category. Over the past year, the Mackenzie China A-Shares CSI 300 Index ETF gained 30.39%, placing it in the 64th percentile within its category and outperforming the 22.46% return on the average fund.
The Bronze-rated Mackenzie China A-Shares CSI 300 Index ETF was launched in February 2018.
Harvest Clean Energy ETF
• Morningstar Rating: ★
• Expense Ratio: 0.69%
• Morningstar Category: Global Small/Mid Cap Equity
The third-worst performing ETF in January was the C$17 million Harvest Clean Energy ETF, which fell 1.74%. The Harvest Portfolios ETF, which is actively managed, performed roughly in line with the average 2.46% loss on funds in the global small/mid cap equity category. Over the past 12 months, the ETF fell 10.41% to place in the 99th percentile within its category, underperforming the category’s average return of 12.19%.
The Harvest Clean Energy ETF has a Morningstar Medalist Rating of Bronze. It was launched in January 2021.
Global X Pipelines & Energy Services Index ETF
• Morningstar Rating: ★★★
• Expense Ratio: 0.74%
• Morningstar Category: Energy Equity
The C$33 million Global X Pipelines & Energy Services Index ETF was the fourth-worst performing ETF in January, with a loss of 1.07%. The passively managed Global X ETF performed better than the average 3.30% loss on funds in the energy equity category. Over the past year, the ETF gained 12.12% to land in the 77th percentile within its category, underperforming the category’s average one-year return of 14.04%.
The Neutral-rated Global X Pipelines & Energy Services Index ETF was launched in July 2014.
iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF
• Morningstar Rating: ★★
• Expense Ratio: 0.60%
• Morningstar Category: Natural Resources Equity
Fifth-worst was the C$239 million iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF, which lost 1.05% in January. The passively managed iShares ETF declined less than the average 5.76% decline on funds in the natural resources equity category. Over the past 12 months, the iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF rose 10.64%, finishing in the 84th percentile within its category. It performed roughly in line with the category’s average return of 10.02%.
The iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF has a Morningstar Medalist Rating of Neutral. It was launched in April 2011.
iShares S&P/TSX Capped REIT Index ETF
• Morningstar Rating: ★
• Expense Ratio: 0.61%
• Morningstar Category: Real Estate Equity
The sixth-worst performing ETF in January was the C$1.3 billion iShares S&P/TSX Capped REIT Index ETF, which lost 0.95%. The passively managed iShares ETF fell less than the average 5.53% loss on funds in the real estate equity category. Over the past year, the iShares S&P/TSX Capped REIT Index ETF fell 2.16%, placing it in the 100th percentile within its category and underperforming the 5.69% return on the average fund.
The iShares S&P/TSX Capped REIT Index ETF has a Negative Morningstar Medalist Rating, meaning that our analysts expect it to be one of the worst performers within its category and think it is unlikely to deliver positive returns after fees.
BMO Equal Weight Global Base Metals Hedged to CAD Index ETF
• Morningstar Rating: ★★
• Expense Ratio: 0.61%
• Morningstar Category: Natural Resources Equity
With a 0.89% loss, the C$27 million BMO Equal Weight Global Base Metals Hedged to CAD Index ETF was the seventh-worst performing ETF on our list for January. The passively managed BMO ETF dropped less than the average 5.76% loss on funds in the natural resources equity category. Over the past 12 months, the BMO Equal Weight Global Base Metals Hedged to CAD Index ETF gained 20.84%, placing it in the 39th percentile within its category and outperforming the 10.02% return on the average fund.
The BMO Equal Weight Global Base Metals Hedged to CAD Index ETF, launched in October 2009, has a Morningstar Medalist Rating of Negative.
Global X Active Canadian Dividend ETF
• Morningstar Rating: ★★★★
• Expense Ratio: 0.69%
• Morningstar Category: Canadian Dividend & Income Equity
The eighth-worst performing ETF in January was the C$119 million Global X Active Canadian Dividend ETF, which fell 0.73%. The Global X ETF, which is actively managed, edged out the average 2.92% loss on funds in the Canadian dividend & income equity category. Over the past year, the ETF rose 19.71% to place in the 41st percentile within its category, outperforming the average one-year return of 16.50%.
The Global X Active Canadian Dividend ETF, launched in February 2010, has a Morningstar Medalist Rating of Neutral.
iShares S&P/TSX Canadian Dividend Aristocrats Index ETF
• Morningstar Rating: ★★
• Expense Ratio: 0.66%
• Morningstar Category: Canadian Dividend & Income Equity
The C$939 million iShares S&P/TSX Canadian Dividend Aristocrats Index ETF was the ninth-worst performing ETF in January, with a decline of 0.51%. The passively managed iShares ETF performed better than the average 2.92% loss on funds in the Canadian dividend & income equity category. Over the past 12 months, the ETF gained 18.38% to land in the 54th percentile, outperforming the category’s average return of 16.50%.
The iShares S&P/TSX Canadian Dividend Aristocrats Index ETF has a Morningstar Medalist Rating of Silver. It was launched in September 2006.
Global X Equal Weight Canadian REITs Index Corporate Class ETF
• Morningstar Rating: ★★
• Expense Ratio: 0.33%
• Morningstar Category: Real Estate Equity
Tenth-worst was the C$40 million Global X Equal Weight Canadian REITs Index Corporate Class ETF, which lost 0.09% in January. The passively managed Global X ETF dropped less than the average 5.53% loss on funds in the real estate equity category for the month. Over the past year, the Global X Equal Weight Canadian REITs Index Corporate Class ETF rose 3.26%, finishing the 12-month period in the 80th percentile within the real estate equity category. It underperformed the category’s average one-year return of 5.69%.
The Neutral-rated Global X Equal Weight Canadian REITs Index Corporate Class ETF was launched in January 2019.
What Are ETFs?
Exchange-traded funds are investments that trade throughout the day on stock exchanges, much like individual stocks. They differ from traditional mutual funds – known as open-end funds – which can only be bought or sold at a single price each day. Historically, ETFs have tracked indexes, but in recent years, more ETFs have been actively managed. ETFs cover a range of asset classes, including stocks, bonds, commodities, and most recently cryptocurrency.
ETFs: More Ideas to Consider
Investors who would like to find more ETF investment ideas can do the following:
• Use the ETF Screener tool to find the best ETFs according to your specific criteria. You can search for funds based on their fees, Morningstar Medalist Ratings, manager tenures, and more.
• Find ideas specific to your needs, or learn more about ETFs, on our ETF Insights page.
• Compare funds and ETFs side by side and easily follow their valuations, ratings, and fees.
This article was generated with the help of automation and reviewed by Morningstar editors. Learn more about Morningstar’s use of automation.
The author or authors do not own shares in any securities mentioned in this article. Find out about Morningstar's editorial policies.
