CDL vs. FNDF

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CDL (VictoryShares US Large Cap High Dividend Volatility Wtd ETF) and FNDF (Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CDL is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap High Dividend 100 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, CDL returned 10.90%/yr vs 11.80%/yr for FNDF. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CDL charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FNDF.

Performance

CDL vs. FNDF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares US Large Cap High Dividend Volatility Wtd ETF (CDL) 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, CDL achieves a 11.55% return, which is significantly lower than FNDF's 20.97% return. Over the past 10 years, CDL has underperformed FNDF with an annualized return of 10.90%, while FNDF has yielded a comparatively higher 11.80% annualized return.

CDL

• 1D: 1.02%
• 1M: 0.22%
• YTD: 11.55%
• 6M: 11.58%
• 1Y: 20.28%
• 3Y*: 15.17%
• 5Y*: 8.90%
• 10Y*: 10.90%

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)

CDL vs. FNDF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CDL VictoryShares US Large Cap High Dividend Volatility Wtd ETF	11.55%	9.04%	15.58%	3.03%	-0.45%	33.42%	-3.35%	26.38%	-5.86%	16.29%
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 CDL 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	0.54
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 9, 2015	0.67

Over the past year, the correlation between CDL and FNDF has dropped to 0.47 - well below their long-term average of 0.67, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CDL vs. FNDF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CDL	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

CDL vs. FNDF — Risk / Return Rank

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

CDL

CDL Risk / Return Rank: 67
CDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
CDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
CDL Omega Ratio Rank: 60
CDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
CDL Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

CDL vs. FNDF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares US Large Cap High Dividend Volatility Wtd ETF (CDL) 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.

	CDL	FNDF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	2.94	-0.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.10	3.83	-0.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.52	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.60	4.17	-0.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.75	15.91	-3.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CDL vs. FNDF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CDL Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the FNDF Sharpe Ratio of 2.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CDL 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

	CDL	FNDF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.09	2.94	-0.85
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65	0.83	-0.18
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.64	0.67	-0.03
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.65	0.54	+0.12

Drawdowns

CDL vs. FNDF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CDL drawdown since its inception was -41.03%, roughly equal to the maximum FNDF drawdown of -40.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CDL and FNDF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CDL	FNDF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.03%	-40.14%	-0.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.66%	-10.60%	+4.94%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.87%	-13.89%	+1.02%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.28%	-25.56%	+8.28%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.03%	-40.14%	-0.89%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.19%	-0.87%	-0.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.35%	-7.64%	+3.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.59%	2.77%	-1.18%

Volatility

CDL vs. FNDF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VictoryShares US Large Cap High Dividend Volatility Wtd ETF (CDL) is 2.83%, while Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF (FNDF) has a volatility of 5.10%. This indicates that CDL 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

	CDL	FNDF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.83%	5.10%	-2.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.89%	12.53%	-5.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.79%	15.04%	-5.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.85%	16.18%	-2.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.04%	17.67%	-0.63%

CDL vs. FNDF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CDL has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than FNDF's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

CDL vs. FNDF - Dividend Comparison

CDL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.14%, more than FNDF's 2.84% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CDL VictoryShares US Large Cap High Dividend Volatility Wtd ETF	3.14%	3.33%	3.27%	3.61%	3.31%	2.60%	3.32%	3.04%	3.32%	2.87%	2.97%	1.28%
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 CDL and FNDF in my portfolio?

CDL 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, CDL or FNDF?

FNDF has higher volatility (5.10%) compared to CDL (2.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CDL dropped -41.03% vs FNDF's -40.14%.

Which ETF is better, CDL or FNDF?

On 10-year performance, FNDF leads with 11.80% vs 10.90% for CDL. On fees, FNDF is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, CDL has been the lower-risk option at 2.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CDL or FNDF?

Over the 10-year period, FNDF has performed better with a 11.80% return vs 10.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CDL or FNDF?

FNDF is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CDL.

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

CDL has the higher dividend yield at 3.14%, compared with 2.84% for FNDF.

What is the main difference between CDL and FNDF?

CDL is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while FNDF is Foreign Large Cap Equities. CDL tracks Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap High Dividend 100 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: 0.35% for CDL and 0.25% for FNDF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNDF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.94 vs 2.09), 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.