CFA vs. QQQN

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

CFA (VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF) and QQQN (VictoryShares Nasdaq Next 50 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 QQQN is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Q-50 Index. Both are passively managed. CFA charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for QQQN.

Performance

CFA vs. QQQN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and VictoryShares Nasdaq Next 50 ETF (QQQN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

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%

QQQN

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

*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)
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF	$524.86K	$498.13K	$606.17K
QQQN VictoryShares Nasdaq Next 50 ETF	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

CFA vs. QQQN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF	6.57%
QQQN VictoryShares Nasdaq Next 50 ETF	0.00%

CFA vs. QQQN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CFA	QQQN
Industrials	18.6%	8.7%
Financial Services	18.1%	-
Technology	16.6%	47.3%
Healthcare	9.8%	19.9%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	13.7%
Utilities	8.7%	1.6%
Consumer Defensive	6.6%	1.4%
Energy	4.8%	-
Basic Materials	3.5%	1.9%
Communication Services	3.2%	5.5%
Real Estate	0.4%	-

Return for Risk

CFA vs. QQQN — 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

QQQN

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. QQQN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and VictoryShares Nasdaq Next 50 ETF (QQQN). 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	QQQN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.98	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.01	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.58	—	—

Drawdowns

CFA vs. QQQN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CFA drawdown since its inception was -37.74%, which is greater than QQQN's maximum drawdown of 0.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CFA and QQQN.

Drawdown Indicators

	CFA	QQQN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.74%	0.00%	-37.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.13%	—	—
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.36%	0.00%	-1.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.12%	0.00%	-4.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.89%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CFA	QQQN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.68%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.88%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.75%	0.00%	+10.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.03%	0.00%	+15.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.14%	0.00%	+17.14%

CFA vs. QQQN - Expense Ratio Comparison

CFA has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQN's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

CFA vs. QQQN - Dividend Comparison

CFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, while QQQN has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
QQQN VictoryShares Nasdaq Next 50 ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Which ETF is better, CFA or QQQN?

On fees, QQQN is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CFA or QQQN?

QQQN is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CFA.

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

CFA has the higher dividend yield at 1.22%, compared with 0.00% for QQQN.

What is the main difference between CFA and QQQN?

CFA is categorized as Low Volatility, while QQQN is Mid Cap Growth Equities. CFA tracks Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Volatility Weighted Index, while QQQN tracks Nasdaq Q-50 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CFA and 0.18% for QQQN.