CLU.NEO vs. ZEQL.TO
CLU.NEO (iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class) and ZEQL.TO (BMO MSCI USA Equal Weight Index ETF (CAD Units)) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds - CLU.NEO tracks the FTSE RAFI US 1000 Canadian Dollar Hedged Index while ZEQL.TO tracks the MSCI USA Equal Weighted Index. Both are passively managed. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CLU.NEO charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for ZEQL.TO.
Performance
CLU.NEO vs. ZEQL.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
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%
ZEQL.TO
- 1D
- 0.74%
- 1M
- 5.81%
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CLU.NEO vs. ZEQL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
CLU.NEO iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class | 3.28% |
ZEQL.TO BMO MSCI USA Equal Weight Index ETF (CAD Units) | 8.24% |
Correlation
The correlation between CLU.NEO and ZEQL.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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 10, 2026 | 0.55 |
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. ZEQL.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CLU.NEO
ZEQL.TO
CLU.NEO vs. ZEQL.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 BMO MSCI USA Equal Weight Index ETF (CAD Units) (ZEQL.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 | ZEQL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.54 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.86 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 14.84 | — | — |
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 | ZEQL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.50 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.64 | — | — |
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 | 2.21 | -1.60 |
Drawdowns
CLU.NEO vs. ZEQL.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CLU.NEO drawdown since its inception was -39.93%, which is greater than ZEQL.TO's maximum drawdown of -6.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLU.NEO and ZEQL.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CLU.NEO | ZEQL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -39.93% | -6.12% | -33.81% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.55% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.57% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.66% | — | — |
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% | -1.67% | -3.07% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.70% | — | — |
Volatility
CLU.NEO vs. ZEQL.TO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CLU.NEO | ZEQL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.30% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.24% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.11% | 12.89% | -2.78% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.54% | 12.89% | +1.65% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.08% | 12.89% | +5.19% |
CLU.NEO vs. ZEQL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
CLU.NEO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than ZEQL.TO's 0.05% expense ratio.
Dividends
CLU.NEO vs. ZEQL.TO - Dividend Comparison
CLU.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.20%, more than ZEQL.TO's 0.37% 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% |
ZEQL.TO BMO MSCI USA Equal Weight Index ETF (CAD Units) | 0.37% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CLU.NEO and ZEQL.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, ZEQL.TO is cheaper at 0.05% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ZEQL.TO is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CLU.NEO.
CLU.NEO tracks FTSE RAFI US 1000 Canadian Dollar Hedged Index, while ZEQL.TO tracks MSCI USA Equal Weighted Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for CLU.NEO and 0.05% for ZEQL.TO.
Find the right allocation for CLU.NEO and ZEQL.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