RUSB.TO vs. MFT.TO

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

RUSB.TO (RBC Short Term U.S. Corporate Bond ETF) and MFT.TO (Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RUSB.TO is a Short-Term Bond fund actively managed by RBC, while MFT.TO is a Bank Loan fund actively managed by Mackenzie. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, RUSB.TO returned 4.57%/yr vs 3.90%/yr for MFT.TO. Their -0.02 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. RUSB.TO charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.66%/yr for MFT.TO.

Performance

RUSB.TO vs. MFT.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in RBC Short Term U.S. Corporate Bond ETF (RUSB.TO) and Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF (MFT.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RUSB.TO achieves a 2.89% return, which is significantly lower than MFT.TO's 3.25% return.

RUSB.TO

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: -1.57%
• 6M: 3.39%
• YTD: 2.89%
• 1Y: 4.65%
• 3Y*: 7.18%
• 5Y*: 4.57%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 3.69%

MFT.TO

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: 0.83%
• 6M: 3.36%
• YTD: 3.25%
• 1Y: 2.67%
• 3Y*: 5.65%
• 5Y*: 3.90%
• 10Y*: 4.31%
• ALL TIME*: 4.34%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
MFT.TO Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF	CA$52.83K	CA$57.21K	CA$69.55K
RUSB.TO RBC Short Term U.S. Corporate Bond ETF	CA$25.43K	CA$22.75K	CA$20.30K

RUSB.TO vs. MFT.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RUSB.TO RBC Short Term U.S. Corporate Bond ETF	2.89%	1.61%	13.88%	3.94%	-0.28%	-0.52%	1.46%	2.36%	7.83%	-0.13%
MFT.TO Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF	3.25%	0.81%	8.84%	11.99%	-6.31%	5.56%	-0.64%	6.00%	2.29%	1.14%

Correlation

The correlation between RUSB.TO and MFT.TO is 0.01, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.01
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.00
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	-0.00
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 3, 2017	-0.02

Return for Risk

RUSB.TO vs. MFT.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

RUSB.TO

RUSB.TO Risk / Return Rank: 30
RUSB.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
RUSB.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
RUSB.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 30
RUSB.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
RUSB.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 29

MFT.TO

MFT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 43
MFT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
MFT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
MFT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 38
MFT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
MFT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 43

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

RUSB.TO vs. MFT.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RBC Short Term U.S. Corporate Bond ETF (RUSB.TO) and Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF (MFT.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	RUSB.TO	MFT.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.73	1.13	-0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.05	1.67	-0.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.20	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.28	2.19	-0.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.75	5.24	-2.49

RUSB.TO vs. MFT.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RUSB.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.73, which is lower than the MFT.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RUSB.TO and MFT.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.

Drawdowns

RUSB.TO vs. MFT.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RUSB.TO drawdown since its inception was -14.28%, smaller than the maximum MFT.TO drawdown of -20.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RUSB.TO and MFT.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	RUSB.TO	MFT.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.28%	-20.87%	+6.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.60%	-1.33%	-2.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.26%	-3.40%	-1.86%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-8.10%	-7.45%	-0.65%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-20.87%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.97%	-0.06%	-1.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.09%	-1.37%	-2.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.67%	0.55%	+1.12%

Volatility

RUSB.TO vs. MFT.TO - Volatility Comparison

RBC Short Term U.S. Corporate Bond ETF (RUSB.TO) has a higher volatility of 1.67% compared to Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF (MFT.TO) at 0.78%. This indicates that RUSB.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MFT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RUSB.TO	MFT.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.67%	0.78%	+0.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.95%	1.87%	+2.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.33%	2.58%	+3.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.95%	3.72%	+3.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.94%	5.08%	+1.86%

RUSB.TO vs. MFT.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

RUSB.TO has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than MFT.TO's 0.66% expense ratio.

Dividends

RUSB.TO vs. MFT.TO - Dividend Comparison

RUSB.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.23%, less than MFT.TO's 7.56% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
MFT.TO Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF	7.56%	8.57%	9.44%	10.40%	6.26%	3.89%	6.18%	6.97%	6.14%	4.84%	3.94%
RUSB.TO RBC Short Term U.S. Corporate Bond ETF	4.23%	3.96%	3.38%	3.26%	2.48%	2.30%	2.78%	2.80%	1.90%	0.41%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RUSB.TO and MFT.TO in my portfolio?

RUSB.TO and MFT.TO have a correlation of 0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, RUSB.TO or MFT.TO?

On fees, RUSB.TO is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, RUSB.TO or MFT.TO?

RUSB.TO is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.66% for MFT.TO.

What is the main difference between RUSB.TO and MFT.TO?

RUSB.TO is categorized as Short-Term Bond, while MFT.TO is Bank Loan. They also come from different issuers: RBC and Mackenzie. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for RUSB.TO and 0.66% for MFT.TO.