VS
When evaluating costs, GDIV features a management fee (MER) of 0.35%, compared to 0.28% for UDEF.U. Performance-wise, GDIV has returned 20.99% year-to-date with +$80 M in net flows, whereas UDEF.U is at 15.06% with -$0 M. Use the comparison tool below to benchmark these funds across top 10 holdings, yield, sector weights and historical returns.
NAV Performance and Flows
Key Data
Compare
GDIV
UDEF.U
| AuM | $100.49 M | $2.66 M |
| Management Fees | 0.35% | 0.28% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.37% | 0.32% |
| Tracking Difference | - | - |
Historical performance and flows
As of November 11, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | GDIV | +0.16% | -0.77% | +20.99% | +19.46% | +75.23% |
UDEF.U | +2.29% | +1.17% | +15.06% | +15.79% | +48.19% | |
| Flows | GDIV | +$6 M | +$21 M | +$80 M | +$84 M | +$78 M |
UDEF.U | +$0 M | +$0 M | -$0 M | +$0 M | +$0 M |
GDIV vs UDEF.U exposure
Countries
GDIV
Other
100.00%
UDEF.U
USA
94.35%
Sectors
GDIV
Other
100.00%
UDEF.U
Technology
35.11%
Finance
17.01%
Healthcare
13.59%
Industrials
9.90%
Other
24.39%
As of November 11, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
GDIV
CA56503P1080
68.05%
CA56503T1003
24.06%
CA56502U1084
5.64%
CA56502Q1072
2.01%
UDEF.U
Fortinet, Inc.
2.21%
Apple, Inc.
2.19%
NVIDIA Corp.
2.13%
Lam Research Corp.
2.07%
Johnson & Johnson
2.07%
Microsoft Corp.
2.06%
Merck & Co., Inc.
2.03%
Amphenol Corp.
2.03%
Applied Materials, Inc.
1.97%
Mastercard, Inc.
1.94%
Diversification
GDIV
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 4 total
99.76%
UDEF.U
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 170 total
20.69%
Characteristics
Compare
GDIV
UDEF.U
| Provider | Manulife Investments | Manulife Investments |
| Management | Actively managed | Actively managed |
| Benchmark | - | - |
| Replication Method | - | - |
| Asset Class | Equity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 1.47% | 0.00% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | May 15, 2023 | November 9, 2022 |
Frequently asked questions about GDIV and UDEF.U
Which ETF has performed better year to date: GDIV or UDEF.U?
As of November 11, 2026, GDIV has returned 20.99% year to date, while UDEF.U has returned 15.06%. GDIV is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: GDIV or UDEF.U?
As of November 11, 2026, GDIV manages $100.49 M in assets, while UDEF.U manages $2.66 M. GDIV is the larger fund by AUM.
How are GDIV and UDEF.U managed?
GDIV is actively managed by Manulife Investments. It does not track an index. UDEF.U is actively managed by Manulife Investments. It does not track an index.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: GDIV or UDEF.U?
Year to date, GDIV has seen +$79.75 M in net flows, compared with -$0.00 M for UDEF.U. GDIV has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of GDIV and UDEF.U compare?
GDIV has an expense ratio of 0.37%, while UDEF.U has an expense ratio of 0.32%.
Which ETF is more diversified: GDIV or UDEF.U?
GDIV holds 1 securities, while UDEF.U holds 170. On holdings count, UDEF.U is the more diversified portfolio.
Recent articles about GDIV and UDEF.U
The ETF Market Canada is brought to you by Cboe in partnership with Trackinsight SA who is providing all the data, analysis and editorial content on this site. Unless explicitly stated as such, any information that you receive is not real-time.
All content on the ETF Market Canada is for your general information use only, Cboe is not responsible for any use of content by you outside this scope. In particular, the content does not constitute any form of advice, recommendation, representation, endorsement or arrangement by Cboe and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any specific investment or other decisions.
All content on the ETF Market Canada is for your general information use only, Cboe is not responsible for any use of content by you outside this scope. In particular, the content does not constitute any form of advice, recommendation, representation, endorsement or arrangement by Cboe and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any specific investment or other decisions.