PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
FLUS.TO vs. CLU.NEO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

FLUS.TO vs. CLU.NEO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLUS.TO (Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF) and CLU.NEO (iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds - FLUS.TO tracks the LibertyQ U.S. Large Cap Equity Index while CLU.NEO tracks the FTSE RAFI US 1000 Canadian Dollar Hedged Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLUS.TO returned 16.75%/yr vs 9.30%/yr for CLU.NEO. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLUS.TO charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.72%/yr for CLU.NEO.

Performance

FLUS.TO vs. CLU.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLUS.TO) and iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class (CLU.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLUS.TO achieves a 13.62% return, which is significantly higher than CLU.NEO's 8.69% return.

FLUS.TO

1D
0.30%
1M
6.59%
YTD
13.62%
6M
8.27%
1Y
26.86%
3Y*
23.14%
5Y*
16.75%
10Y*
—

CLU.NEO

1D
-0.17%
1M
1.48%
YTD
8.69%
6M
10.24%
1Y
25.16%
3Y*
16.95%
5Y*
9.30%
10Y*
11.02%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FLUS.TO vs. CLU.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FLUS.TO
Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF		13.62%10.48%34.58%20.92%-10.01%25.42%8.39%21.78%4.67%8.71%
CLU.NEO
iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class		8.69%15.20%14.82%13.13%-9.37%31.13%3.57%25.41%-11.16%10.20%

Correlation

The correlation between FLUS.TO and CLU.NEO is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.41

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

0.43

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

0.45

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 29, 2017

0.45

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF

iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class

Often compared with FLUS.TO:
FLUS.TO vs. SMVP.TOFLUS.TO vs. HBF.TOFLUS.TO vs. TUEX.TOFLUS.TO vs. COW.TOFLUS.TO vs. CNCL.TOFLUS.TO vs. QUU.TOFLUS.TO vs. TPU.TO
Often compared with CLU.NEO:
CLU.NEO vs. FLCCCLU.NEO vs. IUSCLU.NEO vs. RDVYCLU.NEO vs. BCUSCLU.NEO vs. KATCLU.NEO vs. DFNDCLU.NEO vs. FEAC

Return for Risk

FLUS.TO vs. CLU.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
FLUS.TO
FLUS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
FLUS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6262
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLUS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLUS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
FLUS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLUS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
Martin Ratio Rank
CLU.NEO
CLU.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
CLU.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CLU.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
CLU.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
CLU.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
CLU.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

FLUS.TO vs. CLU.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLUS.TO) and iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class (CLU.NEO). 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.

FLUS.TOCLU.NEODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.05
2.50

-0.45

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.93
3.77

-0.84

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.41

1.54

-0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.92

3.86

-0.94

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.86

14.84

-3.98

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

FLUS.TO vs. CLU.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLUS.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is comparable to the CLU.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 2.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLUS.TO and CLU.NEO, 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

FLUS.TOCLU.NEODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.05

2.50

-0.45

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.15

0.64

+0.51

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.61

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.95

0.61

+0.33

Drawdowns

FLUS.TO vs. CLU.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLUS.TO drawdown since its inception was -28.25%, smaller than the maximum CLU.NEO drawdown of -39.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLUS.TO and CLU.NEO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FLUS.TOCLU.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.25%

-39.93%

+11.68%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.24%

-6.55%

-2.69%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.83%

-16.57%

-2.26%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.13%

-20.66%

+1.53%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-39.93%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.70%

+0.70%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.65%

-4.74%

+1.09%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.48%

1.70%

+0.78%

Volatility

FLUS.TO vs. CLU.NEO - Volatility Comparison

Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLUS.TO) has a higher volatility of 4.00% compared to iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class (CLU.NEO) at 2.30%. This indicates that FLUS.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CLU.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

FLUS.TOCLU.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.00%

2.30%

+1.70%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.68%

7.24%

+3.44%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.18%

10.11%

+3.07%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.63%

14.54%

+0.09%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.84%

18.08%

-2.24%

FLUS.TO vs. CLU.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLUS.TO has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than CLU.NEO's 0.72% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLUS.TO vs. CLU.NEO - Dividend Comparison

FLUS.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.62%, less than CLU.NEO's 1.20% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
FLUS.TO
Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF		0.62%0.73%0.91%1.20%1.72%1.74%1.62%1.83%1.66%0.51%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

FLUS.TO and CLU.NEO have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, FLUS.TO is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FLUS.TO is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CLU.NEO.

FLUS.TO tracks LibertyQ U.S. Large Cap Equity Index, while CLU.NEO tracks FTSE RAFI US 1000 Canadian Dollar Hedged Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for FLUS.TO and 0.72% for CLU.NEO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FLUS.TO and CLU.NEO

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