PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CFA vs. DFND
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CFA vs. DFND - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender ETF (DFND). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

Over the past 10 years, CFA has outperformed DFND with an annualized return of 11.41%, while DFND has yielded a comparatively lower 7.16% annualized return.


CFA

1D
-0.30%
1M
1.81%
YTD
6.66%
6M
6.96%
1Y
13.49%
3Y*
13.78%
5Y*
7.77%
10Y*
11.41%

DFND

1D
0.00%
1M
0.00%
YTD
0.00%
6M
-1.09%
1Y
0.20%
3Y*
7.91%
5Y*
4.54%
10Y*
7.16%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CFA vs. DFND - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CFA
VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF
6.66%8.63%15.34%11.85%-11.39%26.09%11.98%30.15%-8.62%22.47%
DFND
Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender ETF
0.00%10.37%8.48%12.13%-19.59%14.80%16.12%19.53%-1.83%16.33%

Correlation

The correlation between CFA and DFND is 0.11, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.11

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

0.23

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

0.44

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

0.50

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 15, 2016

0.50

Over the past year, the correlation between CFA and DFND has dropped to 0.11 - well below their long-term average of 0.50, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CFA vs. DFND - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CFA
DFND

Industrials

18.4%
17.1%

Financial Services

18.3%
18.2%

Technology

14.9%
24.8%

Consumer Cyclical

9.8%
3.5%

Healthcare

9.5%
10.7%

Utilities

9.0%

-

Consumer Defensive

6.8%
4.2%

Energy

5.5%
1.7%

Basic Materials

3.6%
4.3%

Communication Services

3.6%
0.8%

Real Estate

0.5%
2.0%

Industrials

CFA
18.4%
DFND
17.1%

Financial Services

CFA
18.3%
DFND
18.2%

Technology

CFA
14.9%
DFND
24.8%

Consumer Cyclical

CFA
9.8%
DFND
3.5%

Healthcare

CFA
9.5%
DFND
10.7%

Utilities

CFA
9.0%
DFND

-

Consumer Defensive

CFA
6.8%
DFND
4.2%

Energy

CFA
5.5%
DFND
1.7%

Basic Materials

CFA
3.6%
DFND
4.3%

Communication Services

CFA
3.6%
DFND
0.8%

Real Estate

CFA
0.5%
DFND
2.0%

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

CFA vs. DFND — Risk / Return Rank

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

CFA
CFA Risk / Return Rank: 3737
Overall Rank
CFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 3636
Sortino Ratio Rank
CFA Omega Ratio Rank: 3333
Omega Ratio Rank
CFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3939
Calmar Ratio Rank
CFA Martin Ratio Rank: 4343
Martin Ratio Rank

DFND
DFND Risk / Return Rank: 99
Overall Rank
DFND Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DFND Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
Sortino Ratio Rank
DFND Omega Ratio Rank: 88
Omega Ratio Rank
DFND Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
Calmar Ratio Rank
DFND Martin Ratio Rank: 99
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.

CFA vs. DFND - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender ETF (DFND). 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.


CFADFNDDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.27

0.02

+1.25

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.89

0.11

+1.78

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.02

+0.21

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

1.90

0.07

+1.83

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

7.03

0.13

+6.90

CFA vs. DFND - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CFA Sharpe Ratio is 1.27, which is higher than the DFND Sharpe Ratio of 0.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CFA and DFND, 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


CFADFNDDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.27

0.02

+1.25

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.52

0.21

+0.31

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.66

0.38

+0.28

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.62

0.36

+0.26

Drawdowns

CFA vs. DFND - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CFA drawdown since its inception was -37.74%, which is greater than DFND's maximum drawdown of -22.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CFA and DFND.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CFADFNDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-37.74%

-22.65%

-15.09%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.13%

-3.44%

-3.69%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.28%

-12.56%

-4.72%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.88%

-22.65%

+1.77%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-37.74%

-22.65%

-15.09%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.30%

-3.69%

+3.39%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.17%

-5.70%

+1.53%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.92%

3.70%

-1.78%

Volatility

CFA vs. DFND - Volatility Comparison

VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) has a higher volatility of 2.40% compared to Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender ETF (DFND) at 0.00%. This indicates that CFA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DFND based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CFADFNDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.40%

0.00%

+2.40%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.82%

6.16%

+1.66%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.70%

10.92%

-0.22%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.06%

22.46%

-7.40%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.21%

19.09%

-1.88%

CFA vs. DFND - Expense Ratio Comparison

CFA has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than DFND's 1.50% expense ratio.


Dividends

CFA vs. DFND - Dividend Comparison

CFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.24%, more than DFND's 0.62% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CFA
VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF
1.24%1.29%1.32%1.42%1.59%1.04%1.21%1.35%1.50%1.15%1.37%1.31%
DFND
Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender ETF
0.62%1.10%1.64%1.84%0.29%0.00%0.00%0.77%0.53%0.02%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


CFA and DFND have a correlation of 0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CFA has higher volatility (2.40%) compared to DFND (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CFA dropped -37.74% vs DFND's -22.65%.

On 10-year performance, CFA leads with 11.41% vs 7.16% for DFND. On fees, CFA is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, DFND 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, CFA has performed better with a 11.41% return vs 7.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CFA is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for DFND.

CFA has the higher dividend yield at 1.24%, compared with 0.62% for DFND.

CFA tracks Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Volatility Weighted Index, while DFND tracks Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender Index. They also come from different issuers: VictoryShares and SRN Advisors. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CFA and 1.50% for DFND.

CFA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.27 vs 0.02), 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 CFA and DFND

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