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

Performance

CFA vs. SMLV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and SPDR SSGA US Small Cap Low Volatility Index ETF (SMLV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CFA achieves a 10.24% return, which is significantly lower than SMLV's 23.05% return. Over the past 10 years, CFA has outperformed SMLV with an annualized return of 11.58%, while SMLV has yielded a comparatively lower 10.64% 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%

SMLV

1D
-0.02%
1M
0.72%
6M
16.25%
YTD
23.05%
1Y
34.18%
3Y*
16.71%
5Y*
10.12%
10Y*
10.64%
ALL TIME*
11.09%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$524.86K$498.13K$606.17K
$451.73K$474.34K$539.60K

CFA vs. SMLV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
SMLV
SPDR SSGA US Small Cap Low Volatility Index ETF
23.05%5.66%16.77%7.52%-7.69%27.67%-1.55%24.10%-6.62%5.68%

Correlation

The correlation between CFA and SMLV is 0.79, 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.

0.79

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.80

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.83

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.82

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2014

0.80

The correlation between CFA and SMLV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

CFA vs. SMLV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CFA
SMLV

Industrials

18.6%
14.3%

Financial Services

18.1%
30.9%

Technology

16.6%
11.8%

Healthcare

9.8%
8.9%

Consumer Cyclical

9.6%
9.0%

Utilities

8.7%
2.7%

Consumer Defensive

6.6%
3.5%

Energy

4.8%
1.5%

Basic Materials

3.5%
3.3%

Communication Services

3.2%
2.3%

Real Estate

0.4%
11.9%

Industrials

CFA
18.6%
SMLV
14.3%

Financial Services

CFA
18.1%
SMLV
30.9%

Technology

CFA
16.6%
SMLV
11.8%

Healthcare

CFA
9.8%
SMLV
8.9%

Consumer Cyclical

CFA
9.6%
SMLV
9.0%

Utilities

CFA
8.7%
SMLV
2.7%

Consumer Defensive

CFA
6.6%
SMLV
3.5%

Energy

CFA
4.8%
SMLV
1.5%

Basic Materials

CFA
3.5%
SMLV
3.3%

Communication Services

CFA
3.2%
SMLV
2.3%

Real Estate

CFA
0.4%
SMLV
11.9%

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. SMLV — Risk / Return Rank

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

CFA
CFA Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
CFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
CFA Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
CFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
CFA Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank

SMLV
SMLV Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
SMLV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8888
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SMLV Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
SMLV Omega Ratio Rank: 8888
Omega Ratio Rank
SMLV Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
SMLV Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
Martin Ratio Rank
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. SMLV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and SPDR SSGA US Small Cap Low Volatility Index ETF (SMLV). 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.


CFASMLVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.78

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.05

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.39

-0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.01

4.43

-2.42

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.58

12.96

-5.38

CFA vs. SMLV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CFA Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is lower than the SMLV Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CFA and SMLV, 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...

Drawdowns

CFA vs. SMLV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CFA drawdown since its inception was -37.74%, smaller than the maximum SMLV drawdown of -42.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CFA and SMLV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CFASMLVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-37.74%

-42.45%

+4.71%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.13%

-7.34%

+0.21%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.28%

-20.40%

+3.12%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.88%

-20.40%

-0.48%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-37.74%

-42.45%

+4.71%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.36%

-1.22%

-0.14%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.12%

-5.40%

+1.28%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.89%

2.50%

-0.61%

Volatility

CFA vs. SMLV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) is 2.68%, while SPDR SSGA US Small Cap Low Volatility Index ETF (SMLV) has a volatility of 3.67%. This indicates that CFA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SMLV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CFASMLVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.68%

3.67%

-0.99%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.88%

9.58%

-1.70%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.75%

15.38%

-4.63%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.03%

18.21%

-3.18%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.14%

20.90%

-3.76%

CFA vs. SMLV - Expense Ratio Comparison

CFA has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than SMLV's 0.12% expense ratio.


Dividends

CFA vs. SMLV - Dividend Comparison

CFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, less than SMLV's 2.21% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
SMLV
SPDR SSGA US Small Cap Low Volatility Index ETF
2.21%2.74%2.68%2.68%2.40%2.12%2.47%2.62%3.15%7.92%3.04%2.63%

Frequently Asked Questions


CFA and SMLV have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

SMLV has higher volatility (3.67%) compared to CFA (2.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CFA dropped -37.74% vs SMLV's -42.45%.

On 10-year performance, CFA leads with 11.58% vs 10.64% for SMLV. On fees, SMLV is cheaper at 0.12% per year. On volatility, CFA has been the lower-risk option at 2.68%. 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 11.58% return vs 10.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

SMLV is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CFA.

SMLV has the higher dividend yield at 2.21%, compared with 1.22% for CFA.

CFA tracks Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Volatility Weighted Index, while SMLV tracks SSGA US Small Cap Low Volatility Index. They also come from different issuers: VictoryShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CFA and 0.12% for SMLV.

SMLV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 1.34), 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 SMLV

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