CDC vs. BGIG

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

CDC (VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF) and BGIG (Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. CDC is passively managed, while BGIG is actively managed. Over the past year, CDC returned 22.77% vs 20.71% for BGIG. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CDC charges 0.37%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for BGIG.

Performance

CDC vs. BGIG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF (CDC) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CDC achieves a 14.81% return, which is significantly higher than BGIG's 10.74% return.

CDC

• 1D: 0.62%
• 1M: 2.06%
• YTD: 14.81%
• 6M: 14.02%
• 1Y: 22.77%
• 3Y*: 13.20%
• 5Y*: 6.49%
• 10Y*: 10.81%

BGIG

• 1D: 0.42%
• 1M: 1.00%
• YTD: 10.74%
• 6M: 9.91%
• 1Y: 20.71%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CDC vs. BGIG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CDC VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF	14.81%	8.96%	14.48%	2.04%
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	10.74%	12.49%	16.84%	3.57%

Correlation

The correlation between CDC and BGIG is 0.72, 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	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2023	0.72

The correlation between CDC and BGIG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

CDC vs. BGIG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CDC	BGIG
Financial Services	24.0%	14.4%
Utilities	23.9%	7.2%
Consumer Defensive	15.1%	6.8%
Energy	8.8%	10.2%
Consumer Cyclical	7.0%	4.8%
Healthcare	6.9%	15.2%
Technology	5.0%	25.7%
Industrials	4.4%	10.3%
Communication Services	4.0%	0.8%
Basic Materials	0.0%	0.6%
Real Estate	0.0%	3.8%

Return for Risk

CDC vs. BGIG — Risk / Return Rank

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

CDC

CDC Risk / Return Rank: 82
CDC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
CDC Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
CDC Omega Ratio Rank: 77
CDC Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
CDC Martin Ratio Rank: 82

BGIG

BGIG Risk / Return Rank: 81
BGIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
BGIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
BGIG Omega Ratio Rank: 80
BGIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
BGIG Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

CDC vs. BGIG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF (CDC) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). 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.

	CDC	BGIG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.30	2.32	-0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.36	3.31	+0.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.42	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.04	3.58	+0.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.20	13.82	+0.38

CDC vs. BGIG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CDC Sharpe Ratio is 2.30, which is comparable to the BGIG Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CDC and BGIG, 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

CDC vs. BGIG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CDC drawdown since its inception was -21.37%, which is greater than BGIG's maximum drawdown of -13.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CDC and BGIG.

Drawdown Indicators

	CDC	BGIG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.37%	-13.24%	-8.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.67%	-5.81%	+0.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.70%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.37%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-21.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.08%	+0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.09%	-1.74%	-3.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.61%	1.50%	+0.11%

Volatility

CDC vs. BGIG - Volatility Comparison

VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF (CDC) has a higher volatility of 3.32% compared to Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) at 2.36%. This indicates that CDC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BGIG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CDC	BGIG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.32%	2.36%	+0.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.12%	6.72%	+0.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.99%	9.02%	+0.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.52%	11.88%	+0.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.20%	11.88%	+1.32%

CDC vs. BGIG - Expense Ratio Comparison

CDC has a 0.37% expense ratio, which is lower than BGIG's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

CDC vs. BGIG - Dividend Comparison

CDC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.12%, more than BGIG's 1.73% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	1.73%	1.89%	2.02%	0.78%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CDC VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF	3.12%	3.36%	3.32%	4.24%	3.48%	2.65%	2.48%	3.04%	3.37%	2.81%	2.99%	3.17%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CDC and BGIG in my portfolio?

CDC and BGIG have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CDC or BGIG?

CDC has higher volatility (3.32%) compared to BGIG (2.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CDC dropped -21.37% vs BGIG's -13.24%.

Which ETF is better, CDC or BGIG?

On 1-year performance, CDC leads with 22.77% vs 20.71% for BGIG. On fees, CDC is cheaper at 0.37% per year. On volatility, BGIG has been the lower-risk option at 2.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CDC or BGIG?

Over the 1-year period, CDC has performed better with a 22.77% return vs 20.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CDC or BGIG?

CDC is cheaper with a 0.37% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for BGIG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CDC or BGIG?

CDC has the higher dividend yield at 3.12%, compared with 1.73% for BGIG.

What is the main difference between CDC and BGIG?

They also come from different issuers: Crestview and Bahl & Gaynor. Their fees differ too: 0.37% for CDC and 0.45% for BGIG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BGIG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 2.30), 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.