PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CDC vs. CIL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CDC vs. CIL - 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 VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CDC achieves a 10.57% return, which is significantly higher than CIL's 5.44% return. Over the past 10 years, CDC has outperformed CIL with an annualized return of 10.03%, while CIL has yielded a comparatively lower 8.21% annualized return.


CDC

1D
-0.57%
1M
-0.39%
YTD
10.57%
6M
10.29%
1Y
18.16%
3Y*
11.97%
5Y*
5.08%
10Y*
10.03%

CIL

1D
0.00%
1M
0.00%
YTD
5.44%
6M
7.94%
1Y
17.37%
3Y*
15.59%
5Y*
7.45%
10Y*
8.21%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CDC vs. CIL - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CDC
VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF
10.57%8.96%14.48%-4.99%-7.86%33.05%12.88%19.64%-5.97%15.77%
CIL
VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF
5.44%32.99%3.76%16.29%-16.00%11.07%7.21%19.13%-13.34%27.67%

Correlation

The correlation between CDC and CIL is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.40

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

0.46

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

0.49

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

0.49

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2015

0.48

CDC vs. CIL - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CDC
CIL

Utilities

24.3%
6.6%

Financial Services

23.4%
24.8%

Consumer Defensive

15.9%
8.8%

Energy

9.5%
4.6%

Technology

6.9%
6.4%

Healthcare

6.8%
7.7%

Consumer Cyclical

6.6%
8.2%

Communication Services

4.4%
5.8%

Industrials

2.3%
18.4%

Basic Materials

0.0%
6.6%

Real Estate

0.0%
2.2%

Utilities

CDC
24.3%
CIL
6.6%

Financial Services

CDC
23.4%
CIL
24.8%

Consumer Defensive

CDC
15.9%
CIL
8.8%

Energy

CDC
9.5%
CIL
4.6%

Technology

CDC
6.9%
CIL
6.4%

Healthcare

CDC
6.8%
CIL
7.7%

Consumer Cyclical

CDC
6.6%
CIL
8.2%

Communication Services

CDC
4.4%
CIL
5.8%

Industrials

CDC
2.3%
CIL
18.4%

Basic Materials

CDC
0.0%
CIL
6.6%

Real Estate

CDC
0.0%
CIL
2.2%

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

CDC vs. CIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

CDC
CDC Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
CDC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5454
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CDC Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
CDC Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
CDC Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
CDC Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank

CIL
CIL Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
CIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIL Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
CIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIL Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
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.

CDC vs. CIL - 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 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.


CDCCILDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.37

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.44

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.32

1.49

-0.17

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.22

3.95

-0.73

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.37

16.75

-5.39

CDC vs. CIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CDC Sharpe Ratio is 1.87, which is comparable to the CIL Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CDC 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CDCCILDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.87

2.24

-0.37

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.41

0.46

-0.05

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.76

0.48

+0.28

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.74

0.43

+0.31

Drawdowns

CDC vs. CIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CDC drawdown since its inception was -21.37%, smaller than the maximum CIL drawdown of -36.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CDC and CIL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CDCCILDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-21.37%

-36.27%

+14.90%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.67%

-4.60%

-1.07%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.70%

-11.96%

-0.74%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.37%

-29.89%

+8.52%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-21.37%

-36.27%

+14.90%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.20%

-0.58%

-1.62%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.09%

-6.56%

+1.47%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.60%

1.07%

+0.53%

Volatility

CDC vs. CIL - Volatility Comparison

VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF (CDC) has a higher volatility of 2.66% compared to VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) at 0.00%. This indicates that CDC'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


CDCCILDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.66%

0.00%

+2.66%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.84%

4.23%

+2.61%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.77%

8.19%

+1.58%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.54%

16.49%

-3.95%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.21%

17.17%

-3.96%

CDC vs. CIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

CDC vs. CIL - Dividend Comparison

CDC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.18%, more than CIL's 1.67% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CDC
VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF
3.18%3.36%3.32%4.24%3.48%2.65%2.48%3.04%3.37%2.81%2.99%3.17%
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


CDC and CIL have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CDC has higher volatility (2.66%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CDC dropped -21.37% vs CIL's -36.27%.

On 10-year performance, CDC leads with 10.03% vs 8.21% for CIL. On fees, CDC is cheaper at 0.37% 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 10-year period, CDC has performed better with a 10.03% return vs 8.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

CDC has the higher dividend yield at 3.18%, compared with 1.67% for CIL.

CDC is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while CIL is Foreign Large Cap Equities. CDC tracks Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap High Dividend 100 Long/Cash Volatility Weighted Index, while CIL tracks Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index. Their fees differ too: 0.37% for CDC and 0.45% for CIL.

CIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 1.87), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CDC 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