PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CLU.NEO vs. DFND
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CLU.NEO vs. DFND - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class (CLU.NEO) and Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender ETF (DFND). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CLU.NEO is traded in CAD, while DFND is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the DFND 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 8.87% return, which is significantly higher than DFND's 0.92% return. Over the past 10 years, CLU.NEO has outperformed DFND with an annualized return of 11.03%, while DFND has yielded a comparatively lower 7.93% annualized return.


CLU.NEO

1D
0.18%
1M
1.65%
YTD
8.87%
6M
11.12%
1Y
25.37%
3Y*
17.02%
5Y*
9.43%
10Y*
11.03%

DFND

1D
0.41%
1M
2.00%
YTD
0.92%
6M
-1.47%
1Y
1.49%
3Y*
9.16%
5Y*
7.53%
10Y*
7.93%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CLU.NEO vs. DFND - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CLU.NEO
iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class
8.87%15.20%14.82%13.13%-9.37%31.13%3.57%25.41%-11.16%14.83%
DFND
Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender ETF
0.92%5.68%17.79%9.66%-13.86%13.76%14.15%13.66%6.49%8.92%

Correlation

The correlation between CLU.NEO and DFND is 0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.


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

0.06

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

0.09

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

0.11

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

0.10

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 15, 2016

0.08

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. DFND — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CLU.NEO
CLU.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
CLU.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CLU.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
CLU.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
CLU.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
CLU.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
Martin Ratio Rank

DFND
DFND Risk / Return Rank: 99
Overall Rank
DFND Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DFND Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
Sortino Ratio Rank
DFND Omega Ratio Rank: 88
Omega Ratio Rank
DFND Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
Calmar Ratio Rank
DFND Martin Ratio Rank: 99
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.

CLU.NEO vs. DFND - 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 Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender ETF (DFND). 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.NEODFNDDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.51

0.15

+2.36

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

3.79

0.29

+3.50

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.55

1.04

+0.51

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.94

0.30

+3.64

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

15.20

0.57

+14.63

CLU.NEO vs. DFND - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLU.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is higher than the DFND Sharpe Ratio of 0.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLU.NEO and DFND, 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


CLU.NEODFNDDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.51

0.15

+2.36

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.65

0.35

+0.30

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.61

0.42

+0.19

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.62

0.34

+0.28

Drawdowns

CLU.NEO vs. DFND - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLU.NEO drawdown since its inception was -39.93%, which is greater than DFND's maximum drawdown of -21.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLU.NEO and DFND.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CLU.NEODFNDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-39.93%

-21.72%

-18.21%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.55%

-5.87%

-0.68%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.57%

-15.30%

-1.27%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.66%

-21.72%

+1.06%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.93%

-21.72%

-18.21%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.54%

-4.46%

+3.92%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.75%

-6.41%

+1.66%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.70%

4.30%

-2.60%

Volatility

CLU.NEO vs. DFND - Volatility Comparison

iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class (CLU.NEO) has a higher volatility of 2.29% compared to Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender ETF (DFND) at 0.80%. This indicates that CLU.NEO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DFND based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CLU.NEODFNDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.29%

0.80%

+1.49%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.31%

6.78%

+0.53%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.13%

11.63%

-1.50%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.54%

22.24%

-7.70%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.08%

19.11%

-1.03%

CLU.NEO vs. DFND - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLU.NEO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is lower than DFND's 1.50% expense ratio.


Dividends

CLU.NEO vs. DFND - Dividend Comparison

CLU.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.20%, more than DFND's 0.62% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
DFND
Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender ETF
0.62%1.10%1.64%1.84%0.29%0.00%0.00%0.77%0.53%0.02%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


CLU.NEO and DFND have a correlation of 0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CLU.NEO is cheaper at 0.72% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CLU.NEO is cheaper with a 0.72% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for DFND.

CLU.NEO tracks FTSE RAFI US 1000 Canadian Dollar Hedged Index, while DFND tracks Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and SRN Advisors. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for CLU.NEO and 1.50% for DFND.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CLU.NEO and DFND

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