PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XMU.TO vs. RUD.TO

Last updated Jul 1, 2026
See Documentation

XMU.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF) and RUD.TO (RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD)) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. XMU.TO is passively managed, while RUD.TO is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMU.TO returned 9.16%/yr vs 17.15%/yr for RUD.TO. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XMU.TO charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.43%/yr for RUD.TO.

Performance

XMU.TO vs. RUD.TO - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMU.TO achieves a 6.19% return, which is significantly lower than RUD.TO's 12.00% return. Over the past 10 years, XMU.TO has underperformed RUD.TO with an annualized return of 9.16%, while RUD.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 17.15% annualized return.

XMU.TO

1D
0.01%
1M
3.00%
YTD
6.19%
6M
5.54%
1Y
4.62%
3Y*
10.60%
5Y*
7.85%
10Y*
9.16%

RUD.TO

1D
0.62%
1M
3.07%
YTD
12.00%
6M
11.39%
1Y
22.78%
3Y*
18.77%
5Y*
16.29%
10Y*
17.15%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XMU.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF		6.19%-0.80%22.08%6.68%-3.58%17.10%3.13%20.92%9.19%10.94%
RUD.TO
RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD)		12.00%7.35%25.76%23.90%-15.14%54.34%13.61%25.93%6.03%14.39%

Correlation

The correlation between XMU.TO and RUD.TO is 0.53, 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

0.53

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.56

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

0.59

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

0.62

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 15, 2014

0.62

The correlation between XMU.TO and RUD.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors
XMU.TO
RUD.TO

Technology

33.9%
31.1%

Healthcare

12.6%
8.0%

Financial Services

11.7%
12.9%

Consumer Defensive

9.4%
8.4%

Utilities

6.9%
3.0%

Communication Services

6.2%
8.4%

Industrials

6.1%
8.7%

Consumer Cyclical

5.7%
13.2%

Energy

2.7%
5.0%

Real Estate

2.5%
0.8%

Basic Materials

2.4%
0.5%

Technology

XMU.TO
33.9%
RUD.TO
31.1%

Healthcare

XMU.TO
12.6%
RUD.TO
8.0%

Financial Services

XMU.TO
11.7%
RUD.TO
12.9%

Consumer Defensive

XMU.TO
9.4%
RUD.TO
8.4%

Utilities

XMU.TO
6.9%
RUD.TO
3.0%

Communication Services

XMU.TO
6.2%
RUD.TO
8.4%

Industrials

XMU.TO
6.1%
RUD.TO
8.7%

Consumer Cyclical

XMU.TO
5.7%
RUD.TO
13.2%

Energy

XMU.TO
2.7%
RUD.TO
5.0%

Real Estate

XMU.TO
2.5%
RUD.TO
0.8%

Basic Materials

XMU.TO
2.4%
RUD.TO
0.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF

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

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
Often compared with RUD.TO:
RUD.TO vs. VGG.TORUD.TO vs. ZUQ.TORUD.TO vs. ZGQ.TORUD.TO vs. CEW.TORUD.TO vs. FCUV.TORUD.TO vs. XGRO.TORUD.TO vs. QQC.TO

Return for Risk

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XMU.TO
XMU.TO Risk / Return Rank: 1515
Overall Rank
XMU.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1616
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1414
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 1515
Omega Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1616
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 1414
Martin Ratio Rank
RUD.TO
RUD.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
RUD.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RUD.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
RUD.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
RUD.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
RUD.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
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.

XMU.TO vs. RUD.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (XMU.TO) and RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD) (RUD.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.

XMU.TORUD.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.45
1.84

-1.39

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.69
2.52

-1.83

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.09

1.34

-0.25

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.55

3.44

-2.90

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.13

12.23

-11.10

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

The current XMU.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.45, which is lower than the RUD.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMU.TO and RUD.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...

Drawdowns

XMU.TO vs. RUD.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMU.TO drawdown since its inception was -27.31%, smaller than the maximum RUD.TO drawdown of -35.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMU.TO and RUD.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XMU.TORUD.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.31%

-35.99%

+8.68%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.45%

-6.65%

-1.80%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-10.97%

-28.31%

+17.34%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.59%

-28.31%

+7.72%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-27.31%

-35.99%

+8.68%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.75%

0.00%

-1.75%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.54%

-10.07%

+5.53%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.10%

1.87%

+2.23%

Volatility

XMU.TO vs. RUD.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (XMU.TO) is 2.66%, while RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD) (RUD.TO) has a volatility of 3.81%. This indicates that XMU.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RUD.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XMU.TORUD.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.66%

3.81%

-1.15%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.36%

9.36%

-3.00%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.24%

12.41%

-2.17%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.67%

34.43%

-19.76%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.08%

44.70%

-27.62%

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

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

Dividends

XMU.TO vs. RUD.TO - Dividend Comparison

XMU.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.14%, less than RUD.TO's 1.37% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
RUD.TO
RBC Quant U.S. Dividend Leaders ETF (CAD)		1.37%1.38%3.43%5.24%5.51%3.38%5.73%6.77%7.06%6.23%6.07%7.42%
XMU.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF		1.14%1.13%1.19%1.41%1.17%1.09%1.72%1.47%1.51%1.63%1.87%1.46%

Frequently Asked Questions

XMU.TO and RUD.TO have a correlation of 0.53, 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: iShares and RBC. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for XMU.TO and 0.43% for RUD.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMU.TO and RUD.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