CDC vs. FNDF

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CDC (VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF) and FNDF (Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CDC is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap High Dividend 100 Long/Cash Volatility Weighted Index, while FNDF is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the RAFI Fundamental High Liquidity Developed ex US Large Index (Net). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CDC returned 10.09%/yr vs 11.80%/yr for FNDF. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CDC charges 0.37%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FNDF.

Performance

CDC vs. FNDF - 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 Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF (FNDF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CDC achieves a 11.64% return, which is significantly lower than FNDF's 20.97% return. Over the past 10 years, CDC has underperformed FNDF with an annualized return of 10.09%, while FNDF has yielded a comparatively higher 11.80% annualized return.

CDC

• 1D: 0.97%
• 1M: 0.15%
• YTD: 11.64%
• 6M: 11.58%
• 1Y: 20.19%
• 3Y*: 12.32%
• 5Y*: 5.28%
• 10Y*: 10.09%

FNDF

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 5.03%
• YTD: 20.97%
• 6M: 24.09%
• 1Y: 43.94%
• 3Y*: 24.21%
• 5Y*: 13.31%
• 10Y*: 11.80%

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

CDC vs. FNDF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CDC VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF	11.64%	8.96%	14.48%	-4.99%	-7.86%	33.05%	12.88%	19.64%	-5.97%	15.77%
FNDF Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF	20.97%	40.99%	2.29%	20.22%	-7.78%	14.97%	3.61%	18.46%	-14.21%	23.98%

Correlation

The correlation between CDC and FNDF is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.50
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.61
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 3, 2014	0.68

Over the past year, the correlation between CDC and FNDF has dropped to 0.47 - well below their long-term average of 0.68, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CDC vs. FNDF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CDC	FNDF
Utilities	24.3%	3.8%
Financial Services	23.4%	16.7%
Consumer Defensive	15.9%	6.9%
Energy	9.5%	12.3%
Technology	6.9%	11.1%
Healthcare	6.8%	5.5%
Consumer Cyclical	6.6%	10.7%
Communication Services	4.4%	4.9%
Industrials	2.3%	15.9%
Basic Materials	0.0%	11.3%
Real Estate	0.0%	0.9%

Return for Risk

CDC vs. FNDF — Risk / Return Rank

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

CDC

CDC Risk / Return Rank: 66
CDC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
CDC Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
CDC Omega Ratio Rank: 59
CDC Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
CDC Martin Ratio Rank: 69

FNDF

FNDF Risk / Return Rank: 85
FNDF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
FNDF Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FNDF Omega Ratio Rank: 86
FNDF Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
FNDF Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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. FNDF - 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 Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF (FNDF). 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.

	CDC	FNDF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.07	2.94	-0.86
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.08	3.83	-0.75
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.52	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.58	4.17	-0.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.62	15.91	-3.29
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CDC vs. FNDF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CDC Sharpe Ratio is 2.07, which is comparable to the FNDF Sharpe Ratio of 2.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CDC and FNDF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CDC	FNDF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.07	2.94	-0.86
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.42	0.83	-0.40
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.77	0.67	+0.10
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.75	0.54	+0.22

Drawdowns

CDC vs. FNDF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CDC drawdown since its inception was -21.37%, smaller than the maximum FNDF drawdown of -40.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CDC and FNDF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CDC	FNDF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.37%	-40.14%	+18.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.67%	-10.60%	+4.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.70%	-13.89%	+1.19%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.37%	-25.56%	+4.19%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-21.37%	-40.14%	+18.77%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.25%	-0.87%	-0.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.09%	-7.64%	+2.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.60%	2.77%	-1.17%

Volatility

CDC vs. FNDF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF (CDC) is 2.81%, while Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF (FNDF) has a volatility of 5.10%. This indicates that CDC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FNDF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CDC	FNDF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.81%	5.10%	-2.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.87%	12.53%	-5.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.81%	15.04%	-5.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.55%	16.18%	-3.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.21%	17.67%	-4.46%

CDC vs. FNDF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CDC has a 0.37% expense ratio, which is higher than FNDF's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

CDC vs. FNDF - Dividend Comparison

CDC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.15%, more than FNDF's 2.84% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CDC VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF	3.15%	3.36%	3.32%	4.24%	3.48%	2.65%	2.48%	3.04%	3.37%	2.81%	2.99%	3.17%
FNDF Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF	2.84%	3.44%	4.01%	3.41%	3.10%	3.54%	2.17%	3.20%	3.47%	2.32%	2.42%	2.08%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CDC and FNDF in my portfolio?

CDC and FNDF have a correlation of 0.47, 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 FNDF?

FNDF has higher volatility (5.10%) compared to CDC (2.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CDC dropped -21.37% vs FNDF's -40.14%.

Which ETF is better, CDC or FNDF?

On 10-year performance, FNDF leads with 11.80% vs 10.09% for CDC. On fees, FNDF is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, CDC has been the lower-risk option at 2.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CDC or FNDF?

Over the 10-year period, FNDF has performed better with a 11.80% return vs 10.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CDC or FNDF?

FNDF is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.37% for CDC.

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

CDC has the higher dividend yield at 3.15%, compared with 2.84% for FNDF.

What is the main difference between CDC and FNDF?

CDC is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while FNDF is Foreign Large Cap Equities. CDC tracks Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap High Dividend 100 Long/Cash Volatility Weighted Index, while FNDF tracks RAFI Fundamental High Liquidity Developed ex US Large Index (Net). They also come from different issuers: Crestview and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.37% for CDC and 0.25% for FNDF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNDF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.94 vs 2.07), 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.