PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CUD.TO vs. XQQ.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CUD.TO vs. XQQ.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CUD.TO (iShares US Dividend Growers Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and XQQ.TO (iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - CUD.TO is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the S&P High Yield Dividend Aristocrats CAD Hedged Index, while XQQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Morningstar US Market TR CAD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CUD.TO returned 5.98%/yr vs 19.70%/yr for XQQ.TO. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CUD.TO charges 0.66%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for XQQ.TO.

Performance

CUD.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares US Dividend Growers Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CUD.TO) and iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CUD.TO achieves a 5.32% return, which is significantly lower than XQQ.TO's 19.81% return. Over the past 10 years, CUD.TO has underperformed XQQ.TO with an annualized return of 5.98%, while XQQ.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 19.70% annualized return.

CUD.TO

1D
-0.28%
1M
-0.09%
YTD
5.32%
6M
1.10%
1Y
4.69%
3Y*
5.56%
5Y*
1.77%
10Y*
5.98%

XQQ.TO

1D
-0.27%
1M
10.58%
YTD
19.81%
6M
18.06%
1Y
38.49%
3Y*
26.43%
5Y*
15.31%
10Y*
19.70%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CUD.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CUD.TO
iShares US Dividend Growers Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		5.32%1.72%6.13%0.09%-2.31%18.87%-2.58%21.16%-5.23%14.50%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		19.81%18.38%24.23%52.23%-33.67%22.29%45.23%37.48%-2.33%31.83%

Correlation

The correlation between CUD.TO and XQQ.TO is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.27

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

0.29

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

0.46

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

0.48

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 14, 2011

0.53

Over the past year, the correlation between CUD.TO and XQQ.TO has dropped to 0.27 - well below their long-term average of 0.53, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CUD.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CUD.TO
XQQ.TO

Industrials

17.3%
3.1%

Consumer Defensive

16.2%
7.7%

Utilities

14.6%
1.4%

Financial Services

12.0%
0.2%

Technology

10.5%
53.7%

Healthcare

7.6%
4.2%

Basic Materials

6.0%
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

5.8%
12.2%

Real Estate

4.4%
0.1%

Energy

3.2%
0.6%

Communication Services

2.5%
15.8%

Industrials

CUD.TO
17.3%
XQQ.TO
3.1%

Consumer Defensive

CUD.TO
16.2%
XQQ.TO
7.7%

Utilities

CUD.TO
14.6%
XQQ.TO
1.4%

Financial Services

CUD.TO
12.0%
XQQ.TO
0.2%

Technology

CUD.TO
10.5%
XQQ.TO
53.7%

Healthcare

CUD.TO
7.6%
XQQ.TO
4.2%

Basic Materials

CUD.TO
6.0%
XQQ.TO
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

CUD.TO
5.8%
XQQ.TO
12.2%

Real Estate

CUD.TO
4.4%
XQQ.TO
0.1%

Energy

CUD.TO
3.2%
XQQ.TO
0.6%

Communication Services

CUD.TO
2.5%
XQQ.TO
15.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares US Dividend Growers Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

Often compared with CUD.TO:
CUD.TO vs. CDZ.TOCUD.TO vs. XHU.TOCUD.TO vs. DGROCUD.TO vs. CYH.TOCUD.TO vs. SCHDCUD.TO vs. ^GSPCCUD.TO vs. VDY.TO
Often compared with XQQ.TO:
XQQ.TO vs. QQC.TOXQQ.TO vs. VFV.TOXQQ.TO vs. HXQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. XQQU.TOXQQ.TO vs. QQQXQQ.TO vs. ZQQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. TEC.TO

Return for Risk

CUD.TO vs. XQQ.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CUD.TO
CUD.TO Risk / Return Rank: 1515
Overall Rank
CUD.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1515
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CUD.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1414
Sortino Ratio Rank
CUD.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
CUD.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1717
Calmar Ratio Rank
CUD.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 1616
Martin Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO
XQQ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
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.

CUD.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares US Dividend Growers Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CUD.TO) and iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.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.

CUD.TOXQQ.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.40
2.45

-2.05

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.64
3.20

-2.57

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.08

1.42

-0.34

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.64

3.03

-2.39

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.57

11.31

-9.75

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CUD.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CUD.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.40, which is lower than the XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CUD.TO and XQQ.TO, 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

CUD.TOXQQ.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.40

2.45

-2.05

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.12

0.68

-0.56

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.35

0.89

-0.54

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.60

0.86

-0.27

Drawdowns

CUD.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CUD.TO drawdown since its inception was -38.36%, roughly equal to the maximum XQQ.TO drawdown of -38.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CUD.TO and XQQ.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CUD.TOXQQ.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-38.36%

-38.55%

+0.19%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.34%

-12.76%

+5.42%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.28%

-22.72%

+7.44%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.06%

-38.55%

+20.49%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.36%

-38.55%

+0.19%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.84%

-0.27%

-4.57%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.09%

-5.92%

+1.83%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.00%

3.41%

-0.41%

Volatility

CUD.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares US Dividend Growers Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CUD.TO) is 2.69%, while iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO) has a volatility of 4.48%. This indicates that CUD.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XQQ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CUD.TOXQQ.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.69%

4.48%

-1.79%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.82%

12.00%

-3.18%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.74%

15.82%

-4.08%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.67%

22.52%

-7.85%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.20%

22.34%

-5.14%

CUD.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CUD.TO has a 0.66% expense ratio, which is higher than XQQ.TO's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

CUD.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Dividend Comparison

CUD.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.92%, more than XQQ.TO's 0.21% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CUD.TO
iShares US Dividend Growers Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		1.92%1.99%1.76%1.96%1.84%1.98%2.05%1.65%2.05%1.44%1.76%1.72%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		0.21%0.25%0.32%0.31%0.43%0.17%0.26%0.46%0.52%0.53%0.76%0.62%

Frequently Asked Questions

CUD.TO and XQQ.TO have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XQQ.TO is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XQQ.TO is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.66% for CUD.TO.

CUD.TO is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while XQQ.TO is Nasdaq-100. CUD.TO tracks S&P High Yield Dividend Aristocrats CAD Hedged Index, while XQQ.TO tracks Morningstar US Market TR CAD. Their fees differ too: 0.66% for CUD.TO and 0.39% for XQQ.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CUD.TO and XQQ.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