FIG.TO vs. RUSB.TO
FIG.TO (CI Investment Grade Bond ETF) and RUSB.TO (RBC Short Term U.S. Corporate Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FIG.TO is a Corporate Bonds fund actively managed by CI, while RUSB.TO is a Short-Term Bond fund actively managed by RBC. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FIG.TO returned 0.78%/yr vs 4.55%/yr for RUSB.TO. At a 0.09 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
FIG.TO vs. RUSB.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FIG.TO achieves a 1.62% return, which is significantly lower than RUSB.TO's 3.05% return.
FIG.TO
- 1D
- 0.21%
- 1M
- 0.13%
- 6M
- 1.19%
- YTD
- 1.62%
- 1Y
- 4.34%
- 3Y*
- 5.55%
- 5Y*
- 0.78%
- 10Y*
- 2.27%
RUSB.TO
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- -0.28%
- 6M
- 1.59%
- YTD
- 3.05%
- 1Y
- 6.15%
- 3Y*
- 7.50%
- 5Y*
- 4.55%
- 10Y*
- —
FIG.TO vs. RUSB.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FIG.TO CI Investment Grade Bond ETF | 1.62% | 5.12% | 5.10% | 6.23% | -12.53% | -1.69% | 7.78% | 6.98% | -0.12% | 0.63% |
RUSB.TO RBC Short Term U.S. Corporate Bond ETF | 3.05% | 1.61% | 13.88% | 3.94% | -0.28% | -0.52% | 1.46% | 2.36% | 7.83% | -0.13% |
Correlation
The correlation between FIG.TO and RUSB.TO is -0.00, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.00 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.09 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.09 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 3, 2017 | 0.09 |
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
FIG.TO vs. RUSB.TO — Risk / Return Rank
FIG.TO
RUSB.TO
FIG.TO vs. RUSB.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Investment Grade Bond ETF (FIG.TO) and RBC Short Term U.S. Corporate Bond ETF (RUSB.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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| FIG.TO | RUSB.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.00 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.01 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.17 | 1.21 | -0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.92 | 1.72 | +0.21 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.65 | 3.74 | +0.91 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FIG.TO vs. RUSB.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FIG.TO drawdown since its inception was -16.80%, which is greater than RUSB.TO's maximum drawdown of -14.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FIG.TO and RUSB.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FIG.TO | RUSB.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.80% | -14.28% | -2.52% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.27% | -3.60% | +1.33% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.24% | -5.26% | +2.02% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -15.97% | -8.10% | -7.87% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -16.80% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.53% | -1.81% | +1.28% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.43% | -4.11% | +0.68% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.94% | 1.65% | -0.71% |
Volatility
FIG.TO vs. RUSB.TO - Volatility Comparison
CI Investment Grade Bond ETF (FIG.TO) and RBC Short Term U.S. Corporate Bond ETF (RUSB.TO) have volatilities of 1.64% and 1.69%, 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FIG.TO | RUSB.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.64% | 1.69% | -0.05% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.20% | 4.13% | -0.93% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.50% | 6.37% | -1.87% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.45% | 6.95% | -1.50% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.16% | 6.95% | -0.79% |
Dividends
FIG.TO vs. RUSB.TO - Dividend Comparison
FIG.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.06%, less than RUSB.TO's 4.14% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FIG.TO CI Investment Grade Bond ETF | 4.06% | 4.04% | 4.08% | 4.12% | 4.19% | 3.52% | 3.34% | 3.41% | 3.60% | 4.34% | 4.69% | 5.05% |
RUSB.TO RBC Short Term U.S. Corporate Bond ETF | 4.14% | 3.96% | 3.38% | 3.26% | 2.48% | 2.30% | 2.78% | 2.80% | 1.90% | 0.41% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FIG.TO and RUSB.TO have a correlation of -0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FIG.TO is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while RUSB.TO is Short-Term Bond. They also come from different issuers: CI and RBC.
Find the right allocation for FIG.TO and RUSB.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