ABLG vs. CIL
ABLG (Abacus FCF International Leaders ETF) and CIL (VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. ABLG is actively managed, while CIL is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ABLG returned 2.09%/yr vs 7.45%/yr for CIL. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ABLG charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CIL.
Performance
ABLG vs. CIL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ABLG achieves a 4.52% return, which is significantly lower than CIL's 5.44% return.
ABLG
- 1D
- 1.19%
- 1M
- 3.16%
- YTD
- 4.52%
- 6M
- 5.07%
- 1Y
- 9.41%
- 3Y*
- 9.79%
- 5Y*
- 2.09%
- 10Y*
- —
CIL
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.00%
- YTD
- 5.44%
- 6M
- 8.27%
- 1Y
- 16.20%
- 3Y*
- 15.59%
- 5Y*
- 7.45%
- 10Y*
- 8.21%
ABLG vs. CIL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ABLG Abacus FCF International Leaders ETF | 4.52% | 13.27% | 0.39% | 18.22% | -24.37% | 16.87% | 18.30% | 24.52% | -17.73% | 7.27% |
CIL VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF | 5.44% | 32.99% | 3.76% | 16.29% | -16.00% | 11.07% | 7.21% | 19.13% | -13.34% | 9.06% |
Correlation
The correlation between ABLG and CIL 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 | 0.75 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.72 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 29, 2017 | 0.70 |
The correlation between ABLG and CIL shifts across timeframes, from 0.55 (1 year) to 0.75 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
ABLG vs. CIL — Risk / Return Rank
ABLG
CIL
ABLG vs. CIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Abacus FCF International Leaders ETF (ABLG) and VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL). 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.
| ABLG | CIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.56 | 2.07 | -1.51 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.91 | 2.96 | -2.05 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | 1.45 | -0.34 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.79 | 4.32 | -3.53 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.81 | 18.62 | -15.81 |
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
| ABLG | CIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.56 | 2.07 | -1.51 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.12 | 0.46 | -0.33 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.48 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.29 | 0.43 | -0.14 |
Drawdowns
ABLG vs. CIL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ABLG drawdown since its inception was -34.17%, smaller than the maximum CIL drawdown of -36.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ABLG and CIL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ABLG | CIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -34.17% | -36.27% | +2.10% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.00% | -4.60% | -8.40% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.34% | -11.96% | -9.38% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -34.13% | -29.89% | -4.24% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -36.27% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.84% | -0.58% | -0.26% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.21% | -6.56% | -2.65% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.66% | 1.07% | +2.59% |
Volatility
ABLG vs. CIL - Volatility Comparison
Abacus FCF International Leaders ETF (ABLG) has a higher volatility of 6.20% compared to VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) at 0.00%. This indicates that ABLG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ABLG | CIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.20% | 0.00% | +6.20% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.17% | 4.42% | +9.75% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.03% | 8.26% | +8.77% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.93% | 16.49% | +0.44% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.90% | 17.18% | +1.72% |
ABLG vs. CIL - Expense Ratio Comparison
ABLG has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is higher than CIL's 0.45% expense ratio.
Dividends
ABLG vs. CIL - Dividend Comparison
ABLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.43%, more than CIL's 1.67% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ABLG Abacus FCF International Leaders ETF | 2.43% | 2.30% | 2.13% | 2.39% | 9.36% | 2.01% | 0.64% | 1.90% | 0.92% | 0.26% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
CIL VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF | 1.67% | 2.70% | 3.46% | 2.91% | 2.41% | 3.04% | 1.73% | 2.69% | 2.85% | 2.17% | 2.34% | 0.43% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ABLG and CIL 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.
ABLG has higher volatility (6.20%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ABLG dropped -34.17% vs CIL's -36.27%.
On 5-year performance, CIL leads with 7.45% vs 2.09% for ABLG. On fees, CIL is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, CIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, CIL has performed better with a 7.45% return vs 2.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CIL is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for ABLG.
ABLG has the higher dividend yield at 2.43%, compared with 1.67% for CIL.
They also come from different issuers: Abacus and Crestview. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for ABLG and 0.45% for CIL.
CIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs 0.56), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for ABLG and CIL
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