BINV vs. CIL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BINV (Brandes International ETF) and CIL (VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. BINV is actively managed, while CIL is passively managed. Over the past year, BINV returned 22.19% vs 16.95% for CIL. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BINV charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CIL.

Performance

BINV vs. CIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brandes International ETF (BINV) and VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BINV achieves a 5.17% return, which is significantly lower than CIL's 5.44% return.

BINV

• 1D: -0.42%
• 1M: -1.26%
• YTD: 5.17%
• 6M: 5.33%
• 1Y: 22.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CIL

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 5.44%
• 6M: 5.34%
• 1Y: 16.95%
• 3Y*: 15.96%
• 5Y*: 7.55%
• 10Y*: 8.21%

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

BINV vs. CIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BINV Brandes International ETF	5.17%	37.84%	7.71%	12.86%
CIL VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF	5.44%	32.99%	3.76%	13.28%

Correlation

The correlation between BINV and CIL is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 5, 2023	0.79

Over the past year, the correlation between BINV and CIL has dropped to 0.58 - well below their long-term average of 0.79, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

BINV vs. CIL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BINV	CIL
Consumer Defensive	23.1%	8.8%
Healthcare	17.1%	7.7%
Consumer Cyclical	15.1%	8.2%
Industrials	11.0%	18.4%
Technology	9.1%	6.4%
Financial Services	7.9%	24.8%
Communication Services	6.2%	5.8%
Basic Materials	5.0%	6.6%
Energy	2.2%	4.6%
Real Estate	1.9%	2.2%
Utilities	1.4%	6.6%

Return for Risk

BINV vs. CIL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BINV

BINV Risk / Return Rank: 46
BINV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
BINV Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
BINV Omega Ratio Rank: 46
BINV Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
BINV Martin Ratio Rank: 42

CIL

CIL Risk / Return Rank: 83
CIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
CIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
CIL Omega Ratio Rank: 90
CIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
CIL Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

BINV vs. CIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brandes International ETF (BINV) 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.

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.

	BINV	CIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.59	2.32	-0.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.32	3.41	-1.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.54	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.94	3.85	-1.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.44	16.75	-10.31

BINV vs. CIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BINV Sharpe Ratio is 1.59, which is lower than the CIL Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BINV and CIL, 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

BINV vs. CIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BINV drawdown since its inception was -14.91%, smaller than the maximum CIL drawdown of -36.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BINV and CIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	BINV	CIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.91%	-36.27%	+21.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.50%	-4.60%	-6.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.96%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.89%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.27%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.56%	-0.58%	-4.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.48%	-6.53%	+4.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.45%	1.07%	+2.38%

Volatility

BINV vs. CIL - Volatility Comparison

Brandes International ETF (BINV) has a higher volatility of 3.66% compared to VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) at 0.00%. This indicates that BINV'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.

Volatility by Period

	BINV	CIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.66%	0.00%	+3.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.33%	3.38%	+7.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.99%	7.66%	+6.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.75%	16.47%	-1.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.75%	17.08%	-2.33%

BINV vs. CIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

BINV has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than CIL's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

BINV vs. CIL - Dividend Comparison

BINV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.08%, more than CIL's 1.20% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BINV Brandes International ETF	2.08%	2.23%	2.40%	0.28%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CIL VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF	1.20%	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

Can I hold both BINV and CIL in my portfolio?

BINV and CIL have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BINV or CIL?

BINV has higher volatility (3.66%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BINV dropped -14.91% vs CIL's -36.27%.

Which ETF is better, BINV or CIL?

On 1-year performance, BINV leads with 22.19% vs 16.95% for CIL. 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.

Which ETF has performed better, BINV or CIL?

Over the 1-year period, BINV has performed better with a 22.19% return vs 16.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BINV or CIL?

CIL is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for BINV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BINV or CIL?

BINV has the higher dividend yield at 2.08%, compared with 1.20% for CIL.

What is the main difference between BINV and CIL?

They also come from different issuers: Brandes and Crestview. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for BINV and 0.45% for CIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 1.59), 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.