POWA vs. CLU.NEO
POWA (Invesco Bloomberg Pricing Power ETF) and CLU.NEO (iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds - POWA tracks the Bloomberg Pricing Power Index while CLU.NEO tracks the FTSE RAFI US 1000 Canadian Dollar Hedged Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, POWA returned 10.28%/yr vs 10.22%/yr for CLU.NEO. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. POWA charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.72%/yr for CLU.NEO.
Performance
POWA vs. CLU.NEO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
POWA is traded in USD, while CLU.NEO is traded in CAD. To make them comparable, the CLU.NEO values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, POWA achieves a -2.29% return, which is significantly lower than CLU.NEO's 7.34% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with POWA having a 10.28% annualized return and CLU.NEO not far behind at 10.22%.
POWA
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.44%
- YTD
- -2.29%
- 6M
- -2.55%
- 1Y
- 4.21%
- 3Y*
- 10.86%
- 5Y*
- 7.41%
- 10Y*
- 10.28%
CLU.NEO
- 1D
- -0.57%
- 1M
- -0.54%
- YTD
- 7.34%
- 6M
- 10.67%
- 1Y
- 23.56%
- 3Y*
- 15.62%
- 5Y*
- 6.28%
- 10Y*
- 10.22%
POWA vs. CLU.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
POWA Invesco Bloomberg Pricing Power ETF | -2.29% | 11.71% | 13.18% | 10.58% | -7.67% | 24.93% | 7.61% | 27.98% | -3.96% | 21.52% |
CLU.NEO iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class | 7.34% | 20.72% | 5.75% | 15.70% | -15.43% | 32.09% | 5.65% | 31.68% | -18.06% | 22.76% |
Correlation
The correlation between POWA and CLU.NEO is 0.58, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.58 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.62 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.65 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.63 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 6, 2009 | 0.66 |
The correlation between POWA and CLU.NEO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
POWA vs. CLU.NEO — Risk / Return Rank
POWA
CLU.NEO
POWA vs. CLU.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Bloomberg Pricing Power ETF (POWA) 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.
| POWA | CLU.NEO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.68 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.42 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.07 | 1.38 | -0.31 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.43 | 2.67 | -2.24 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.18 | 10.24 | -9.06 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| POWA | CLU.NEO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.36 | 2.04 | -1.68 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.54 | 0.35 | +0.18 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.64 | 0.48 | +0.17 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.54 | 0.47 | +0.06 |
Drawdowns
POWA vs. CLU.NEO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum POWA drawdown since its inception was -47.91%, roughly equal to the maximum CLU.NEO drawdown of -45.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for POWA and CLU.NEO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| POWA | CLU.NEO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -47.91% | -45.80% | -2.11% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.76% | -8.87% | -0.89% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.00% | -18.06% | +3.06% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.75% | -27.75% | +10.00% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -36.53% | -45.80% | +9.27% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.44% | -1.35% | -5.09% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.24% | -8.55% | +2.31% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.59% | 2.31% | +1.28% |
Volatility
POWA vs. CLU.NEO - Volatility Comparison
Invesco Bloomberg Pricing Power ETF (POWA) has a higher volatility of 3.12% compared to iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class (CLU.NEO) at 2.43%. This indicates that POWA'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
| POWA | CLU.NEO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.12% | 2.43% | +0.69% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.80% | 8.33% | +0.47% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.73% | 11.60% | +0.13% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.92% | 18.03% | -4.11% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.05% | 21.54% | -5.49% |
POWA vs. CLU.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison
POWA has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than CLU.NEO's 0.72% expense ratio.
Dividends
POWA vs. CLU.NEO - Dividend Comparison
POWA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.96%, less than CLU.NEO's 1.20% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
POWA Invesco Bloomberg Pricing Power ETF | 0.96% | 0.94% | 0.79% | 1.60% | 1.48% | 1.06% | 1.34% | 1.16% | 1.39% | 1.63% | 2.18% | 3.31% |
Frequently Asked Questions
POWA and CLU.NEO have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, POWA is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
POWA is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CLU.NEO.
POWA tracks Bloomberg Pricing Power Index, while CLU.NEO tracks FTSE RAFI US 1000 Canadian Dollar Hedged Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for POWA and 0.72% for CLU.NEO.
Find the right allocation for POWA 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