CLU.NEO vs. RUD.TO
CLU.NEO (iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class) and RUD.TO (RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD)) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. CLU.NEO is passively managed, while RUD.TO is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, CLU.NEO returned 11.02%/yr vs 13.11%/yr for RUD.TO. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CLU.NEO charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.43%/yr for RUD.TO.
Performance
CLU.NEO vs. RUD.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CLU.NEO achieves a 8.69% return, which is significantly lower than RUD.TO's 9.79% return. Over the past 10 years, CLU.NEO has underperformed RUD.TO with an annualized return of 11.02%, while RUD.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 13.11% annualized 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%
RUD.TO
- 1D
- 0.73%
- 1M
- 5.41%
- YTD
- 9.79%
- 6M
- 6.90%
- 1Y
- 23.59%
- 3Y*
- 17.48%
- 5Y*
- 13.95%
- 10Y*
- 13.11%
CLU.NEO vs. RUD.TO - 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% | 14.83% |
RUD.TO RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD) | 9.79% | 7.31% | 22.78% | 19.01% | -7.35% | 31.62% | 8.82% | 19.60% | 1.05% | 9.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between CLU.NEO and RUD.TO is 0.55, 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 | 0.55 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.54 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.55 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.55 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2014 | 0.47 |
The correlation between CLU.NEO and RUD.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.55 - 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. RUD.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CLU.NEO
RUD.TO
CLU.NEO vs. RUD.TO - 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 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.
| CLU.NEO | RUD.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.57 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.15 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.54 | 1.36 | +0.18 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.86 | 3.56 | +0.29 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 14.84 | 12.71 | +2.13 |
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 | RUD.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.50 | 1.93 | +0.57 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.64 | 0.91 | -0.27 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.61 | 0.85 | -0.24 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.61 | 0.81 | -0.20 |
Drawdowns
CLU.NEO vs. RUD.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CLU.NEO drawdown since its inception was -39.93%, 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 CLU.NEO and RUD.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CLU.NEO | RUD.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -39.93% | -29.89% | -10.04% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.55% | -6.65% | +0.10% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.57% | -28.33% | +11.76% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.66% | -28.33% | +7.67% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -39.93% | -29.89% | -10.04% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.70% | 0.00% | -0.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.74% | -3.99% | -0.75% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.70% | 1.86% | -0.16% |
Volatility
CLU.NEO vs. RUD.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class (CLU.NEO) is 2.30%, while RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD) (RUD.TO) has a volatility of 2.51%. This indicates that CLU.NEO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RUD.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CLU.NEO | RUD.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.30% | 2.51% | -0.21% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.24% | 9.29% | -2.05% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.11% | 12.29% | -2.18% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.54% | 15.38% | -0.84% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.08% | 15.53% | +2.55% |
CLU.NEO vs. RUD.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
CLU.NEO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than RUD.TO's 0.43% expense ratio.
Dividends
CLU.NEO vs. RUD.TO - Dividend Comparison
CLU.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.20%, less than RUD.TO's 1.36% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
RUD.TO RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD) | 1.36% | 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
CLU.NEO and RUD.TO have a correlation of 0.55, 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 0.72% for CLU.NEO.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and RBC. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for CLU.NEO and 0.43% for RUD.TO.
Find the right allocation for CLU.NEO 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