CFA vs. IBIC
CFA (VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF) and IBIC (iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CFA is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Volatility Weighted Index, while IBIC is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CFA returned 14.20% vs 4.42% for IBIC. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. CFA charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for IBIC.
Performance
CFA vs. IBIC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CFA achieves a 7.47% return, which is significantly higher than IBIC's 2.43% return.
CFA
- 1D
- -0.20%
- 1M
- 1.27%
- YTD
- 7.47%
- 6M
- 6.57%
- 1Y
- 14.20%
- 3Y*
- 13.51%
- 5Y*
- 8.10%
- 10Y*
- 11.87%
IBIC
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.12%
- YTD
- 2.43%
- 6M
- 2.57%
- 1Y
- 4.42%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CFA vs. IBIC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF | 7.47% | 8.63% | 15.34% | 5.84% |
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF | 2.43% | 4.96% | 5.25% | 2.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between CFA and IBIC is -0.13, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.13 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2023 | -0.02 |
The correlation between CFA and IBIC shifts across timeframes, from -0.13 (1 year) to -0.02 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. IBIC — Risk / Return Rank
CFA
IBIC
CFA vs. IBIC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). 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 | IBIC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -3.68 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -7.03 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.23 | 2.22 | -0.99 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.00 | 16.56 | -14.56 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.39 | 58.67 | -51.28 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CFA vs. IBIC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CFA drawdown since its inception was -37.74%, which is greater than IBIC's maximum drawdown of -0.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CFA and IBIC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CFA | IBIC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -37.74% | -0.90% | -36.84% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.13% | -0.27% | -6.86% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.28% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.88% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -37.74% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.03% | -0.08% | -0.95% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.16% | -0.10% | -4.06% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.93% | 0.08% | +1.85% |
Volatility
CFA vs. IBIC - Volatility Comparison
VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) has a higher volatility of 3.01% compared to iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) at 0.17%. This indicates that CFA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBIC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CFA | IBIC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.01% | 0.17% | +2.84% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.07% | 0.67% | +7.40% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.90% | 0.89% | +10.01% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.08% | 1.56% | +13.52% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.18% | 1.56% | +15.62% |
CFA vs. IBIC - Expense Ratio Comparison
CFA has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than IBIC's 0.10% expense ratio.
Dividends
CFA vs. IBIC - Dividend Comparison
CFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.25%, less than IBIC's 3.58% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF | 1.25% | 1.29% | 1.32% | 1.42% | 1.59% | 1.04% | 1.21% | 1.35% | 1.50% | 1.15% | 1.37% | 1.31% |
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF | 3.58% | 4.43% | 4.65% | 0.83% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CFA and IBIC have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CFA has higher volatility (3.01%) compared to IBIC (0.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CFA dropped -37.74% vs IBIC's -0.90%.
On 1-year performance, CFA leads with 14.20% vs 4.42% for IBIC. On fees, IBIC is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIC has been the lower-risk option at 0.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, CFA has performed better with a 14.20% return vs 4.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBIC is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CFA.
IBIC has the higher dividend yield at 3.58%, compared with 1.25% for CFA.
CFA is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while IBIC is Inflation-Protected Bonds. CFA tracks Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Volatility Weighted Index, while IBIC tracks ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. They also come from different issuers: VictoryShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CFA and 0.10% for IBIC.
IBIC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.99 vs 1.31), 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.
Find the right allocation for CFA and IBIC
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