CFA vs. ACWV

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

CFA (VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CFA is a Low Volatility fund tracking the Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Volatility Weighted Index, while ACWV is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CFA returned 11.58%/yr vs 7.18%/yr for ACWV. Their 0.78 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CFA charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

CFA vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CFA achieves a 10.24% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 5.75% return. Over the past 10 years, CFA has outperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 11.58%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively lower 7.18% annualized return.

CFA

• 1D: -0.18%
• 1M: 0.23%
• 6M: 7.04%
• YTD: 10.24%
• 1Y: 15.32%
• 3Y*: 12.46%
• 5Y*: 7.95%
• 10Y*: 11.58%
• ALL TIME*: 10.46%

ACWV

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: 1.99%
• 6M: 4.00%
• YTD: 5.75%
• 1Y: 8.69%
• 3Y*: 10.41%
• 5Y*: 5.79%
• 10Y*: 7.18%
• ALL TIME*: 8.75%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	$12.13M	$11.24M	$12.40M
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF	$524.86K	$498.13K	$606.17K

CFA vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF	10.24%	8.63%	15.34%	11.85%	-11.39%	26.09%	11.98%	30.15%	-8.62%	22.47%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	5.75%	11.04%	11.38%	8.23%	-10.36%	13.97%	3.04%	21.04%	-1.42%	18.57%

Correlation

The correlation between CFA and ACWV is 0.70, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.76
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.81
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2014	0.78

The correlation between CFA and ACWV shifts across timeframes, from 0.70 (1 year) to 0.81 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CFA vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CFA	ACWV
Industrials	18.6%	8.1%
Financial Services	18.1%	13.5%
Technology	16.6%	25.3%
Healthcare	9.8%	13.8%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	5.3%
Utilities	8.7%	7.5%
Consumer Defensive	6.6%	9.7%
Energy	4.8%	3.5%
Basic Materials	3.5%	1.5%
Communication Services	3.2%	11.3%
Real Estate	0.4%	0.6%

Return for Risk

CFA vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CFA

CFA Risk / Return Rank: 57
CFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
CFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
CFA Omega Ratio Rank: 53
CFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
CFA Martin Ratio Rank: 63

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 44
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 45
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 39

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CFA vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.

	CFA	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	1.14	+0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.98	1.71	+0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.21	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.01	1.45	+0.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.58	4.10	+3.48

CFA vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CFA Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is comparable to the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CFA and ACWV, 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

CFA vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CFA drawdown since its inception was -37.74%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CFA and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	CFA	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.74%	-28.82%	-8.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.13%	-6.37%	-0.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.28%	-7.56%	-9.72%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.88%	-18.14%	-2.74%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-37.74%	-28.82%	-8.92%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.36%	-0.36%	-1.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.12%	-3.10%	-1.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.89%	2.24%	-0.35%

Volatility

CFA vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) have volatilities of 2.68% and 2.56%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CFA	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.68%	2.56%	+0.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.88%	6.41%	+1.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.75%	8.08%	+2.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.03%	10.30%	+4.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.14%	12.30%	+4.84%

CFA vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

CFA has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

CFA vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

CFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, less than ACWV's 1.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.90%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF	1.22%	1.29%	1.32%	1.42%	1.59%	1.04%	1.21%	1.35%	1.50%	1.15%	1.37%	1.31%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CFA and ACWV in my portfolio?

CFA and ACWV have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CFA or ACWV?

CFA has higher volatility (2.68%) compared to ACWV (2.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CFA dropped -37.74% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, CFA or ACWV?

On 10-year performance, CFA leads with 11.58% vs 7.18% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CFA or ACWV?

Over the 10-year period, CFA has performed better with a 11.58% return vs 7.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CFA or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CFA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CFA or ACWV?

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.90%, compared with 1.22% for CFA.

What is the main difference between CFA and ACWV?

CFA is categorized as Low Volatility, while ACWV is Global Equities. CFA tracks Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Volatility Weighted Index, while ACWV tracks MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. They also come from different issuers: VictoryShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CFA and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CFA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.34 vs 1.14), 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.