PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CEW.TO vs. RUD.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CEW.TO vs. RUD.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CEW.TO (iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF) and RUD.TO (RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD)) are both exchange-traded funds - CEW.TO is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Gbl Fin Svc GR CAD, while RUD.TO is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by RBC. CEW.TO is passively managed, while RUD.TO is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, CEW.TO returned 15.05%/yr vs 13.02%/yr for RUD.TO. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CEW.TO charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.43%/yr for RUD.TO.

Performance

CEW.TO vs. RUD.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF (CEW.TO) and RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD) (RUD.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEW.TO achieves a 15.99% return, which is significantly higher than RUD.TO's 8.99% return. Over the past 10 years, CEW.TO has outperformed RUD.TO with an annualized return of 15.05%, while RUD.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 13.02% annualized return.

CEW.TO

1D
-0.28%
1M
4.69%
YTD
15.99%
6M
18.59%
1Y
44.58%
3Y*
29.74%
5Y*
17.56%
10Y*
15.05%

RUD.TO

1D
-0.32%
1M
5.71%
YTD
8.99%
6M
6.16%
1Y
22.08%
3Y*
17.06%
5Y*
13.78%
10Y*
13.02%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CEW.TO vs. RUD.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CEW.TO
iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF		15.99%32.58%29.48%17.04%-6.85%29.26%-0.63%25.38%-12.85%11.88%
RUD.TO
RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD)		8.99%7.31%22.78%19.01%-7.35%31.62%8.82%19.60%1.05%9.17%

Correlation

The correlation between CEW.TO and RUD.TO is 0.52, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.52

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.51

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.53

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.52

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2014

0.44

The correlation between CEW.TO and RUD.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.44 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

CEW.TO vs. RUD.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CEW.TO
RUD.TO

Financial Services

100.0%
12.9%

Basic Materials

-

0.5%

Communication Services

-

8.4%

Consumer Cyclical

-

13.2%

Consumer Defensive

-

8.4%

Energy

-

5.0%

Healthcare

-

8.0%

Industrials

-

8.7%

Real Estate

-

0.8%

Technology

-

31.1%

Utilities

-

3.0%

Financial Services

CEW.TO
100.0%
RUD.TO
12.9%

Basic Materials

CEW.TO

-

RUD.TO
0.5%

Communication Services

CEW.TO

-

RUD.TO
8.4%

Consumer Cyclical

CEW.TO

-

RUD.TO
13.2%

Consumer Defensive

CEW.TO

-

RUD.TO
8.4%

Energy

CEW.TO

-

RUD.TO
5.0%

Healthcare

CEW.TO

-

RUD.TO
8.0%

Industrials

CEW.TO

-

RUD.TO
8.7%

Real Estate

CEW.TO

-

RUD.TO
0.8%

Technology

CEW.TO

-

RUD.TO
31.1%

Utilities

CEW.TO

-

RUD.TO
3.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF

RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD)

Often compared with CEW.TO:
CEW.TO vs. XFN.TOCEW.TO vs. BMOCEW.TO vs. XDIV.TOCEW.TO vs. TEC.TOCEW.TO vs. VFV.TOCEW.TO vs. RY.TOCEW.TO vs. SPY
Often compared with RUD.TO:
RUD.TO vs. VGG.TORUD.TO vs. ZUQ.TORUD.TO vs. ZGQ.TORUD.TO vs. XGRO.TORUD.TO vs. FCUV.TORUD.TO vs. QQC.TORUD.TO vs. XDIV.TO

Return for Risk

CEW.TO vs. RUD.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CEW.TO
CEW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9494
Overall Rank
CEW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9595
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9595
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
CEW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9292
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
Martin Ratio Rank
RUD.TO
RUD.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
RUD.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RUD.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
RUD.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 5454
Omega Ratio Rank
RUD.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6767
Calmar Ratio Rank
RUD.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

CEW.TO vs. RUD.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF (CEW.TO) and RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD) (RUD.TO). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

CEW.TORUD.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.86
1.81

+2.05

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
5.25
2.47

+2.78

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.71

1.34

+0.38

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

6.29

3.34

+2.95

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

23.14

11.90

+11.25

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CEW.TO vs. RUD.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEW.TO Sharpe Ratio is 3.86, which is higher than the RUD.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEW.TO and RUD.TO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

CEW.TORUD.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.86

1.81

+2.05

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.31

0.90

+0.41

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.89

0.84

+0.05

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.59

0.81

-0.22

Drawdowns

CEW.TO vs. RUD.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEW.TO drawdown since its inception was -53.58%, which is greater than RUD.TO's maximum drawdown of -29.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEW.TO and RUD.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CEW.TORUD.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-53.58%

-29.89%

-23.69%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.13%

-6.65%

-0.48%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.74%

-28.33%

+15.59%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.46%

-28.33%

+5.87%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-43.66%

-29.89%

-13.77%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.50%

-0.40%

-1.10%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.02%

-3.99%

-3.03%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.93%

1.86%

+0.07%

Volatility

CEW.TO vs. RUD.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF (CEW.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.65% compared to RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD) (RUD.TO) at 2.59%. This indicates that CEW.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RUD.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CEW.TORUD.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.65%

2.59%

+1.06%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.12%

9.27%

+0.85%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.61%

12.31%

-0.70%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.49%

15.38%

-1.89%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.00%

15.53%

+1.47%

CEW.TO vs. RUD.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEW.TO has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than RUD.TO's 0.43% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEW.TO vs. RUD.TO - Dividend Comparison

CEW.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.42%, more than RUD.TO's 1.37% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CEW.TO
iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF		2.42%2.75%3.32%3.87%3.84%2.93%3.61%3.20%2.95%2.47%2.54%2.74%
RUD.TO
RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD)		1.37%1.35%1.16%1.49%1.57%1.10%1.64%1.93%2.01%1.78%1.73%2.12%

Frequently Asked Questions

CEW.TO and RUD.TO have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, RUD.TO is cheaper at 0.43% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

RUD.TO is cheaper with a 0.43% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for CEW.TO.

CEW.TO is categorized as Financials Equities, while RUD.TO is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and RBC. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for CEW.TO and 0.43% for RUD.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CEW.TO and RUD.TO

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer