CLU.TO vs. PRF
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CLU.TO) and Invesco FTSE RAFI US 1000 ETF (PRF).
CLU.TO and PRF are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CLU.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the FTSE RAFI US 1000 Canadian Dollar Hedged Index. It was launched on Sep 8, 2006. PRF is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the FTSE RAFI US 1000 Index. It was launched on Dec 19, 2005. Both CLU.TO and PRF are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: CLU.TO or PRF.
Key characteristics
| CLU.TO | PRF | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 20.11% | 21.72% |
| 1Y Return | 31.78% | 34.17% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 7.61% | 9.55% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 11.33% | 13.83% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 8.12% | 11.12% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 3.11 | 3.22 |
| Sortino Ratio | 4.41 | 4.46 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.67 | 1.60 |
| Calmar Ratio | 3.83 | 6.11 |
| Martin Ratio | 20.02 | 21.52 |
| Ulcer Index | 1.67% | 1.67% |
| Daily Std Dev | 10.72% | 11.11% |
| Max Drawdown | -39.93% | -60.35% |
| Current Drawdown | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between CLU.TO and PRF is 0.81, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
CLU.TO vs. PRF - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, CLU.TO achieves a 20.11% return, which is significantly lower than PRF's 21.72% return. Over the past 10 years, CLU.TO has underperformed PRF with an annualized return of 8.12%, while PRF has yielded a comparatively higher 11.12% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CLU.TO vs. PRF - Expense Ratio Comparison
CLU.TO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than PRF's 0.39% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
CLU.TO vs. PRF - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CLU.TO) and Invesco FTSE RAFI US 1000 ETF (PRF). 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.
Dividends
CLU.TO vs. PRF - Dividend Comparison
CLU.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.17%, less than PRF's 1.66% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLU.TO iShares US Fundamental Index ETF | 1.17% | 1.35% | 1.63% | 0.82% | 1.04% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
PRF Invesco FTSE RAFI US 1000 ETF | 1.66% | 1.84% | 2.01% | 1.58% | 1.97% | 1.99% | 2.25% | 1.58% | 2.17% | 2.25% | 1.73% | 1.56% |
Drawdowns
CLU.TO vs. PRF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CLU.TO drawdown since its inception was -39.93%, smaller than the maximum PRF drawdown of -60.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLU.TO and PRF. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
CLU.TO vs. PRF - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CLU.TO) is 3.72%, while Invesco FTSE RAFI US 1000 ETF (PRF) has a volatility of 3.93%. This indicates that CLU.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PRF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.