CLU.NEO vs. ABFL
CLU.NEO (iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class) and ABFL (Abacus FCF Leaders ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. CLU.NEO is passively managed, while ABFL is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CLU.NEO returned 9.30%/yr vs 16.08%/yr for ABFL. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CLU.NEO charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for ABFL.
Performance
CLU.NEO vs. ABFL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
CLU.NEO is traded in CAD, while ABFL is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the ABFL values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CLU.NEO achieves a 8.69% return, which is significantly lower than ABFL's 19.57% return.
CLU.NEO
- 1D
- -0.17%
- 1M
- 1.57%
- YTD
- 8.69%
- 6M
- 10.48%
- 1Y
- 24.65%
- 3Y*
- 16.95%
- 5Y*
- 9.30%
- 10Y*
- 11.02%
ABFL
- 1D
- 0.37%
- 1M
- 6.29%
- YTD
- 19.57%
- 6M
- 16.70%
- 1Y
- 22.70%
- 3Y*
- 20.50%
- 5Y*
- 16.08%
- 10Y*
- —
CLU.NEO vs. ABFL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLU.NEO iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class | 8.69% | 15.20% | 14.82% | 13.13% | -9.37% | 31.13% | 3.57% | 25.41% | -11.16% | 11.07% |
ABFL Abacus FCF Leaders ETF | 19.57% | 3.12% | 28.42% | 20.26% | -8.51% | 29.48% | 16.30% | 19.84% | 1.69% | 15.79% |
Correlation
The correlation between CLU.NEO and ABFL is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.52 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.51 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 25, 2017 | 0.50 |
The correlation between CLU.NEO and ABFL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.48 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CLU.NEO vs. ABFL — Risk / Return Rank
CLU.NEO
ABFL
CLU.NEO vs. ABFL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class (CLU.NEO) and Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL). 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.
| CLU.NEO | ABFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.97 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.64 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.54 | 1.26 | +0.28 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.86 | 3.52 | +0.33 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 14.84 | 9.83 | +5.01 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CLU.NEO | ABFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.50 | 1.53 | +0.97 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.64 | 1.06 | -0.42 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.61 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.61 | 0.95 | -0.34 |
Drawdowns
CLU.NEO vs. ABFL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CLU.NEO drawdown since its inception was -39.93%, which is greater than ABFL's maximum drawdown of -28.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLU.NEO and ABFL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CLU.NEO | ABFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -39.93% | -28.81% | -11.12% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.55% | -6.47% | -0.08% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.57% | -19.73% | +3.16% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.66% | -20.14% | -0.52% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -39.93% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.70% | 0.00% | -0.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.74% | -4.35% | -0.39% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.70% | 2.32% | -0.62% |
Volatility
CLU.NEO vs. ABFL - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class (CLU.NEO) is 2.30%, while Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) has a volatility of 4.00%. This indicates that CLU.NEO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ABFL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CLU.NEO | ABFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.30% | 4.00% | -1.70% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.24% | 11.49% | -4.25% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.11% | 14.94% | -4.83% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.54% | 15.19% | -0.65% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.08% | 16.92% | +1.16% |
CLU.NEO vs. ABFL - Expense Ratio Comparison
CLU.NEO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than ABFL's 0.49% expense ratio.
Dividends
CLU.NEO vs. ABFL - Dividend Comparison
CLU.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.20%, more than ABFL's 0.53% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ABFL Abacus FCF Leaders ETF | 0.53% | 0.62% | 0.70% | 0.94% | 1.36% | 9.63% | 0.41% | 0.72% | 0.62% | 0.40% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
CLU.NEO iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class | 1.20% | 1.31% | 1.32% | 1.35% | 1.63% | 1.19% | 1.66% | 1.46% | 1.77% | 1.46% | 1.63% | 1.87% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CLU.NEO and ABFL have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ABFL is cheaper at 0.49% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ABFL is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CLU.NEO.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and Abacus. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for CLU.NEO and 0.49% for ABFL.
Find the right allocation for CLU.NEO and ABFL
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