RUD.TO vs. ZEQL.TO
RUD.TO (RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD)) and ZEQL.TO (BMO MSCI USA Equal Weight Index ETF (CAD Units)) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. RUD.TO is actively managed, while ZEQL.TO is passively managed. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RUD.TO charges 0.43%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for ZEQL.TO.
Performance
RUD.TO vs. ZEQL.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
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%
ZEQL.TO
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- 6.20%
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RUD.TO vs. ZEQL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
RUD.TO RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD) | 6.48% |
ZEQL.TO BMO MSCI USA Equal Weight Index ETF (CAD Units) | 7.44% |
Correlation
The correlation between RUD.TO and ZEQL.TO is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 10, 2026 | 0.72 |
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. ZEQL.TO — Risk / Return Rank
RUD.TO
ZEQL.TO
RUD.TO vs. ZEQL.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 BMO MSCI USA Equal Weight Index ETF (CAD Units) (ZEQL.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.TO | ZEQL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.34 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.90 | — | — |
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 | ZEQL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.81 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.90 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.84 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.81 | 2.01 | -1.20 |
Drawdowns
RUD.TO vs. ZEQL.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RUD.TO drawdown since its inception was -29.89%, which is greater than ZEQL.TO's maximum drawdown of -6.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RUD.TO and ZEQL.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RUD.TO | ZEQL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.89% | -6.12% | -23.77% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.65% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -28.33% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.33% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -29.89% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.40% | -0.58% | +0.18% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.99% | -1.69% | -2.30% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.86% | — | — |
Volatility
RUD.TO vs. ZEQL.TO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RUD.TO | ZEQL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.59% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.27% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.31% | 12.92% | -0.61% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.38% | 12.92% | +2.46% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.53% | 12.92% | +2.61% |
RUD.TO vs. ZEQL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
RUD.TO has a 0.43% expense ratio, which is higher than ZEQL.TO's 0.05% expense ratio.
Dividends
RUD.TO vs. ZEQL.TO - Dividend Comparison
RUD.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.37%, more than ZEQL.TO's 0.37% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
ZEQL.TO BMO MSCI USA Equal Weight Index ETF (CAD Units) | 0.37% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RUD.TO and ZEQL.TO have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ZEQL.TO is cheaper at 0.05% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ZEQL.TO is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.43% for RUD.TO.
They also come from different issuers: RBC and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.43% for RUD.TO and 0.05% for ZEQL.TO.
Find the right allocation for RUD.TO and ZEQL.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