PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
RUD.TO vs. XMU.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

RUD.TO vs. XMU.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RUD.TO (RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD)) and XMU.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. RUD.TO is actively managed, while XMU.TO is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RUD.TO returned 13.02%/yr vs 9.17%/yr for XMU.TO. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RUD.TO charges 0.43%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for XMU.TO.

Performance

RUD.TO vs. XMU.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD) (RUD.TO) and iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (XMU.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RUD.TO achieves a 8.99% return, which is significantly higher than XMU.TO's 3.85% return. Over the past 10 years, RUD.TO has outperformed XMU.TO with an annualized return of 13.02%, while XMU.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 9.17% 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%

XMU.TO

1D
-0.09%
1M
4.37%
YTD
3.85%
6M
-1.16%
1Y
1.98%
3Y*
10.21%
5Y*
8.15%
10Y*
9.17%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RUD.TO vs. XMU.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
XMU.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF		3.85%-0.84%21.99%6.59%-3.64%16.99%2.99%20.78%9.07%10.80%

Correlation

The correlation between RUD.TO and XMU.TO 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

0.59

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

0.67

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

0.70

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2014

0.63

The correlation between RUD.TO and XMU.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.55 (1 year) to 0.70 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RUD.TO vs. XMU.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
RUD.TO
XMU.TO

Technology

31.1%
31.2%

Consumer Cyclical

13.2%
5.7%

Financial Services

12.9%
13.7%

Industrials

8.7%
5.6%

Communication Services

8.4%
5.9%

Consumer Defensive

8.4%
9.9%

Healthcare

8.0%
12.6%

Energy

5.0%
3.7%

Utilities

3.0%
7.4%

Real Estate

0.8%
2.2%

Basic Materials

0.5%
2.1%

Technology

RUD.TO
31.1%
XMU.TO
31.2%

Consumer Cyclical

RUD.TO
13.2%
XMU.TO
5.7%

Financial Services

RUD.TO
12.9%
XMU.TO
13.7%

Industrials

RUD.TO
8.7%
XMU.TO
5.6%

Communication Services

RUD.TO
8.4%
XMU.TO
5.9%

Consumer Defensive

RUD.TO
8.4%
XMU.TO
9.9%

Healthcare

RUD.TO
8.0%
XMU.TO
12.6%

Energy

RUD.TO
5.0%
XMU.TO
3.7%

Utilities

RUD.TO
3.0%
XMU.TO
7.4%

Real Estate

RUD.TO
0.8%
XMU.TO
2.2%

Basic Materials

RUD.TO
0.5%
XMU.TO
2.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD)

iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF

Often compared with RUD.TO:
RUD.TO vs. VGG.TORUD.TO vs. ZUQ.TORUD.TO vs. ZGQ.TORUD.TO vs. CEW.TORUD.TO vs. XGRO.TORUD.TO vs. FCUV.TORUD.TO vs. QQC.TO
Often compared with XMU.TO:
XMU.TO vs. ZLU.TOXMU.TO vs. XMV.TOXMU.TO vs. XMS.TOXMU.TO vs. VFV.TOXMU.TO vs. XIT.TOXMU.TO vs. SMMVXMU.TO vs. XST.TO

Return for Risk

RUD.TO vs. XMU.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
RUD.TO
RUD.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
RUD.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RUD.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
RUD.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 5454
Omega Ratio Rank
RUD.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6767
Calmar Ratio Rank
RUD.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank
XMU.TO
XMU.TO Risk / Return Rank: 1111
Overall Rank
XMU.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1111
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1010
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1212
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 1111
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.

RUD.TO vs. XMU.TO - 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 MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (XMU.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.

RUD.TOXMU.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.81
0.22

+1.59

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.47
0.35

+2.12

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.34

1.04

+0.29

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.34

0.26

+3.08

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.90

0.56

+11.34

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

RUD.TO vs. XMU.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RUD.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.81, which is higher than the XMU.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RUD.TO and XMU.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

RUD.TOXMU.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.81

0.22

+1.59

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.90

0.73

+0.17

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.84

0.66

+0.18

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.81

0.98

-0.17

Drawdowns

RUD.TO vs. XMU.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RUD.TO drawdown since its inception was -29.89%, which is greater than XMU.TO's maximum drawdown of -27.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RUD.TO and XMU.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

RUD.TOXMU.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-29.89%

-27.31%

-2.58%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.65%

-7.71%

+1.06%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.33%

-10.98%

-17.35%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.33%

-18.16%

-10.17%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-29.89%

-27.31%

-2.58%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.40%

-3.95%

+3.55%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.99%

-3.44%

-0.55%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.86%

3.57%

-1.71%

Volatility

RUD.TO vs. XMU.TO - Volatility Comparison

RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD) (RUD.TO) has a higher volatility of 2.59% compared to iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (XMU.TO) at 2.18%. This indicates that RUD.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMU.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

RUD.TOXMU.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.59%

2.18%

+0.41%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.27%

6.86%

+2.41%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.31%

9.20%

+3.11%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.38%

11.15%

+4.23%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.53%

13.97%

+1.56%

RUD.TO vs. XMU.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

RUD.TO has a 0.43% expense ratio, which is higher than XMU.TO's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

RUD.TO vs. XMU.TO - Dividend Comparison

RUD.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.37%, more than XMU.TO's 1.12% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
XMU.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF		1.12%1.10%1.14%1.33%1.10%1.00%1.59%1.36%1.39%1.51%1.73%1.35%

Frequently Asked Questions

RUD.TO and XMU.TO 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, XMU.TO is cheaper at 0.33% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XMU.TO is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.43% for RUD.TO.

They also come from different issuers: RBC and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.43% for RUD.TO and 0.33% for XMU.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RUD.TO and XMU.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