CFA vs. VFMV
CFA (VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF) and VFMV (Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF) are both Low Volatility funds. CFA is passively managed, while VFMV is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CFA returned 7.95%/yr vs 9.39%/yr for VFMV. Their correlation of 0.88 means they have usually moved in the same direction. CFA charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.13%/yr for VFMV.
Performance
CFA vs. VFMV - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CFA achieves a 10.24% return, which is significantly lower than VFMV's 11.10% 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%
VFMV
- 1D
- 0.45%
- 1M
- 2.10%
- 6M
- 7.34%
- YTD
- 11.10%
- 1Y
- 16.07%
- 3Y*
- 14.38%
- 5Y*
- 9.39%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 10.08%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $524.86K | $498.13K | $606.17K | |
| $1.77M | $2.11M | $2.29M |
CFA vs. VFMV - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF | 10.24% | 8.63% | 15.34% | 11.85% | -11.39% | 26.09% | 11.98% | 30.15% | -9.45% |
VFMV Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF | 11.10% | 10.52% | 16.91% | 8.86% | -5.73% | 20.75% | -0.19% | 27.26% | -0.34% |
Correlation
The correlation between CFA and VFMV is 0.89, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.89 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.89 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 15, 2018 | 0.88 |
The correlation between CFA and VFMV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.
CFA vs. VFMV - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CFA
VFMV
Industrials
Financial Services
Technology
Healthcare
Consumer Cyclical
Utilities
Consumer Defensive
Energy
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
Real Estate
Industrials
CFA
VFMV
Financial Services
CFA
VFMV
Technology
CFA
VFMV
Healthcare
CFA
VFMV
Consumer Cyclical
CFA
VFMV
Utilities
CFA
VFMV
Consumer Defensive
CFA
VFMV
Energy
CFA
VFMV
Basic Materials
CFA
VFMV
-
Communication Services
CFA
VFMV
Real Estate
CFA
VFMV
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. VFMV — Risk / Return Rank
CFA
VFMV
CFA vs. VFMV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF (VFMV). 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 | VFMV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.42 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.57 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 1.31 | -0.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.01 | 2.61 | -0.60 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.58 | 10.07 | -2.49 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CFA vs. VFMV - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CFA drawdown since its inception was -37.74%, which is greater than VFMV's maximum drawdown of -33.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CFA and VFMV.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CFA | VFMV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -37.74% | -33.64% | -4.10% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.13% | -6.00% | -1.13% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.28% | -10.35% | -6.93% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.88% | -15.41% | -5.47% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -37.74% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.36% | -1.16% | -0.20% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.12% | -3.59% | -0.53% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.89% | 1.56% | +0.33% |
Volatility
CFA vs. VFMV - Volatility Comparison
VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF (VFMV) have volatilities of 2.68% and 2.73%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CFA | VFMV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.68% | 2.73% | -0.05% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.88% | 6.57% | +1.31% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.75% | 8.96% | +1.79% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.03% | 11.76% | +3.27% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.14% | 14.16% | +2.98% |
CFA vs. VFMV - Expense Ratio Comparison
CFA has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than VFMV's 0.13% expense ratio.
Dividends
CFA vs. VFMV - Dividend Comparison
CFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, less than VFMV's 1.74% 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% |
VFMV Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF | 1.74% | 2.12% | 1.46% | 2.20% | 2.08% | 1.31% | 2.14% | 2.43% | 2.29% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CFA and VFMV have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
VFMV has higher volatility (2.73%) compared to CFA (2.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CFA dropped -37.74% vs VFMV's -33.64%.
On 5-year performance, VFMV leads with 9.39% vs 7.95% for CFA. On fees, VFMV is cheaper at 0.13% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, VFMV has performed better with a 9.39% return vs 7.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
VFMV is cheaper with a 0.13% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CFA.
VFMV has the higher dividend yield at 1.74%, compared with 1.22% for CFA.
They also come from different issuers: VictoryShares and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CFA and 0.13% for VFMV.
VFMV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.76 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.
Find the right allocation for CFA and VFMV
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