CFA vs. SIXA

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

CFA (VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF) and SIXA (6 Meridian Mega Cap Equity ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. CFA is passively managed, while SIXA is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CFA returned 8.29%/yr vs 12.64%/yr for SIXA. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CFA charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.86%/yr for SIXA.

Performance

CFA vs. SIXA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and 6 Meridian Mega Cap Equity ETF (SIXA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CFA achieves a 9.92% return, which is significantly lower than SIXA's 14.32% return.

CFA

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 1.67%
• 6M: 6.90%
• YTD: 9.92%
• 1Y: 13.74%
• 3Y*: 12.92%
• 5Y*: 8.29%
• 10Y*: 11.49%

SIXA

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.47%
• 6M: 12.53%
• YTD: 14.32%
• 1Y: 19.31%
• 3Y*: 20.25%
• 5Y*: 12.64%
• 10Y*: —

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

CFA vs. SIXA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF	9.92%	8.63%	15.34%	11.85%	-11.39%	26.09%	31.09%
SIXA 6 Meridian Mega Cap Equity ETF	14.32%	15.52%	22.70%	11.98%	-5.72%	23.87%	19.04%

Correlation

The correlation between CFA and SIXA is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.83
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2020	0.87

The correlation between CFA and SIXA shifts across timeframes, from 0.73 (1 year) to 0.86 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CFA vs. SIXA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CFA	SIXA
Industrials	18.1%	6.5%
Financial Services	17.8%	7.7%
Technology	17.1%	19.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	3.9%
Healthcare	9.6%	14.5%
Utilities	8.5%	5.0%
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	23.2%
Energy	5.1%	4.8%
Basic Materials	3.6%	-
Communication Services	3.6%	13.9%
Real Estate	0.4%	1.3%

Return for Risk

CFA vs. SIXA — Risk / Return Rank

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

CFA

CFA Risk / Return Rank: 47
CFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
CFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
CFA Omega Ratio Rank: 43
CFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
CFA Martin Ratio Rank: 53

SIXA

SIXA Risk / Return Rank: 85
SIXA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
SIXA Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
SIXA Omega Ratio Rank: 82
SIXA Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
SIXA Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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. SIXA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and 6 Meridian Mega Cap Equity ETF (SIXA). 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	SIXA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.28	2.19	-0.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.89	3.28	-1.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.39	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.93	3.47	-1.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.17	13.15	-5.99

CFA vs. SIXA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CFA Sharpe Ratio is 1.28, which is lower than the SIXA Sharpe Ratio of 2.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CFA and SIXA, 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. SIXA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CFA drawdown since its inception was -37.74%, which is greater than SIXA's maximum drawdown of -18.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CFA and SIXA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CFA	SIXA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.74%	-18.38%	-19.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.13%	-5.59%	-1.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.28%	-11.22%	-6.06%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.88%	-18.38%	-2.50%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-37.74%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.27%	0.00%	-0.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.14%	-2.96%	-1.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.92%	1.47%	+0.45%

Volatility

CFA vs. SIXA - Volatility Comparison

VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) has a higher volatility of 2.59% compared to 6 Meridian Mega Cap Equity ETF (SIXA) at 2.46%. This indicates that CFA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SIXA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CFA	SIXA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.59%	2.46%	+0.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.89%	6.89%	+1.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.81%	8.87%	+1.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.06%	12.78%	+2.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.13%	13.28%	+3.85%

CFA vs. SIXA - Expense Ratio Comparison

CFA has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than SIXA's 0.86% expense ratio.

Dividends

CFA vs. SIXA - Dividend Comparison

CFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, less than SIXA's 2.00% yield.

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%
SIXA 6 Meridian Mega Cap Equity ETF	2.00%	2.31%	1.62%	2.12%	2.23%	1.63%	1.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CFA and SIXA in my portfolio?

CFA and SIXA have a correlation of 0.73, 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 SIXA?

CFA has higher volatility (2.59%) compared to SIXA (2.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CFA dropped -37.74% vs SIXA's -18.38%.

Which ETF is better, CFA or SIXA?

On 5-year performance, SIXA leads with 12.64% vs 8.29% for CFA. On fees, CFA is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, SIXA has been the lower-risk option at 2.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CFA or SIXA?

Over the 5-year period, SIXA has performed better with a 12.64% return vs 8.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CFA or SIXA?

CFA is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for SIXA.

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

SIXA has the higher dividend yield at 2.00%, compared with 1.22% for CFA.

What is the main difference between CFA and SIXA?

They also come from different issuers: VictoryShares and Exchange Traded Concepts. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CFA and 0.86% for SIXA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SIXA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 vs 1.28), 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.