CUD.TO vs. CDZ.TO
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares US Dividend Growers Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CUD.TO) and iShares S&P/TSX Canadian Dividend Aristocrats Index ETF (CDZ.TO).
CUD.TO and CDZ.TO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CUD.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the S&P High Yield Dividend Aristocrats CAD Hedged Index. It was launched on Sep 13, 2011. CDZ.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Morningstar Canada GR CAD. It was launched on Sep 8, 2006. Both CUD.TO and CDZ.TO 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: CUD.TO or CDZ.TO.
Key characteristics
| CUD.TO | CDZ.TO | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 13.05% | 21.49% |
| 1Y Return | 21.18% | 30.46% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 2.61% | 7.43% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 5.57% | 9.09% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 7.58% | 7.58% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 2.36 | 3.49 |
| Sortino Ratio | 3.35 | 4.96 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.42 | 1.65 |
| Calmar Ratio | 1.87 | 3.76 |
| Martin Ratio | 13.26 | 26.26 |
| Ulcer Index | 1.83% | 1.26% |
| Daily Std Dev | 10.28% | 9.45% |
| Max Drawdown | -38.36% | -49.12% |
| Current Drawdown | -2.24% | -1.09% |
Correlation
The correlation between CUD.TO and CDZ.TO is 0.82, 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
CUD.TO vs. CDZ.TO - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, CUD.TO achieves a 13.05% return, which is significantly lower than CDZ.TO's 21.49% return. Over a longer period, both investments have demonstrated similar performance, with their 10-year annualized returns being quite close: CUD.TO at 7.58% and CDZ.TO at 7.58%. 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.
CUD.TO vs. CDZ.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both CUD.TO and CDZ.TO have an expense ratio of 0.66%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
CUD.TO vs. CDZ.TO - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares US Dividend Growers Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CUD.TO) and iShares S&P/TSX Canadian Dividend Aristocrats Index ETF (CDZ.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.
Dividends
CUD.TO vs. CDZ.TO - Dividend Comparison
CUD.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.85%, less than CDZ.TO's 3.62% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CUD.TO iShares US Dividend Growers Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 1.85% | 2.05% | 1.92% | 2.07% | 2.14% | 1.73% | 2.14% | 1.51% | 1.85% | 1.80% | 4.72% | 1.75% |
CDZ.TO iShares S&P/TSX Canadian Dividend Aristocrats Index ETF | 3.62% | 3.92% | 3.89% | 3.12% | 3.92% | 3.90% | 4.62% | 3.63% | 3.71% | 3.94% | 7.64% | 3.42% |
Drawdowns
CUD.TO vs. CDZ.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CUD.TO drawdown since its inception was -38.36%, smaller than the maximum CDZ.TO drawdown of -49.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CUD.TO and CDZ.TO. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
CUD.TO vs. CDZ.TO - Volatility Comparison
iShares US Dividend Growers Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CUD.TO) and iShares S&P/TSX Canadian Dividend Aristocrats Index ETF (CDZ.TO) have volatilities of 3.20% and 3.15%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.