RUD.TO vs. CLU.NEO
RUD.TO (RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD)) and CLU.NEO (iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. RUD.TO is actively managed, while CLU.NEO is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RUD.TO returned 13.02%/yr vs 11.02%/yr for CLU.NEO. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RUD.TO charges 0.43%/yr vs 0.72%/yr for CLU.NEO.
Performance
RUD.TO vs. CLU.NEO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with RUD.TO having a 8.99% return and CLU.NEO slightly lower at 8.69%. Over the past 10 years, RUD.TO has outperformed CLU.NEO with an annualized return of 13.02%, while CLU.NEO has yielded a comparatively lower 11.02% annualized return.
RUD.TO
- 1D
- -0.32%
- 1M
- 5.71%
- YTD
- 8.99%
- 6M
- 6.16%
- 1Y
- 22.08%
- 3Y*
- 17.06%
- 5Y*
- 13.78%
- 10Y*
- 13.02%
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%
RUD.TO vs. CLU.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RUD.TO RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD) | 8.99% | 7.31% | 22.78% | 19.01% | -7.35% | 31.62% | 8.82% | 19.60% | 1.05% | 9.17% |
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% | 14.83% |
Correlation
The correlation between RUD.TO and CLU.NEO is 0.55, 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 | 0.55 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.54 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.55 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.55 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2014 | 0.47 |
The correlation between RUD.TO and CLU.NEO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.55 - 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
RUD.TO vs. CLU.NEO — Risk / Return Rank
RUD.TO
CLU.NEO
RUD.TO vs. CLU.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD) (RUD.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.
| RUD.TO | CLU.NEO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.69 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.30 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | 1.54 | -0.21 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.34 | 3.86 | -0.52 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.90 | 14.84 | -2.94 |
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
| RUD.TO | CLU.NEO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.81 | 2.50 | -0.69 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.90 | 0.64 | +0.26 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.84 | 0.61 | +0.23 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.81 | 0.61 | +0.20 |
Drawdowns
RUD.TO vs. CLU.NEO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RUD.TO drawdown since its inception was -29.89%, smaller than the maximum CLU.NEO drawdown of -39.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RUD.TO and CLU.NEO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RUD.TO | CLU.NEO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.89% | -39.93% | +10.04% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.65% | -6.55% | -0.10% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -28.33% | -16.57% | -11.76% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.33% | -20.66% | -7.67% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -29.89% | -39.93% | +10.04% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.40% | -0.70% | +0.30% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.99% | -4.74% | +0.75% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.86% | 1.70% | +0.16% |
Volatility
RUD.TO vs. CLU.NEO - Volatility Comparison
RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD) (RUD.TO) has a higher volatility of 2.59% compared to iShares US Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) Common Class (CLU.NEO) at 2.30%. This indicates that RUD.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
| RUD.TO | CLU.NEO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.59% | 2.30% | +0.29% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.27% | 7.24% | +2.03% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.31% | 10.11% | +2.20% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.38% | 14.54% | +0.84% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.53% | 18.08% | -2.55% |
RUD.TO vs. CLU.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison
RUD.TO has a 0.43% expense ratio, which is lower than CLU.NEO's 0.72% expense ratio.
Dividends
RUD.TO vs. CLU.NEO - Dividend Comparison
RUD.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.37%, more 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% |
RUD.TO RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD) | 1.37% | 1.35% | 1.16% | 1.49% | 1.57% | 1.10% | 1.64% | 1.93% | 2.01% | 1.78% | 1.73% | 2.12% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RUD.TO and CLU.NEO have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, RUD.TO is cheaper at 0.43% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
RUD.TO is cheaper with a 0.43% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CLU.NEO.
They also come from different issuers: RBC and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.43% for RUD.TO and 0.72% for CLU.NEO.
Find the right allocation for RUD.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