CFA vs. XLG

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

CFA (VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF) and XLG (Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 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 XLG is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CFA returned 11.44%/yr vs 17.41%/yr for XLG. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CFA charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XLG.

Performance

CFA vs. XLG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CFA achieves a 6.98% return, which is significantly lower than XLG's 8.82% return. Over the past 10 years, CFA has underperformed XLG with an annualized return of 11.44%, while XLG has yielded a comparatively higher 17.41% annualized return.

CFA

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: 1.35%
• YTD: 6.98%
• 6M: 7.87%
• 1Y: 14.73%
• 3Y*: 13.90%
• 5Y*: 7.94%
• 10Y*: 11.44%

XLG

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 5.06%
• YTD: 8.82%
• 6M: 8.60%
• 1Y: 30.80%
• 3Y*: 24.94%
• 5Y*: 16.76%
• 10Y*: 17.41%

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

CFA vs. XLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF	6.98%	8.63%	15.34%	11.85%	-11.39%	26.09%	11.98%	30.15%	-8.62%	22.47%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	8.82%	19.51%	33.49%	38.16%	-24.29%	30.77%	24.15%	32.04%	-3.59%	23.04%

Correlation

The correlation between CFA and XLG is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.59
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 3, 2014	0.74

Over the past year, the correlation between CFA and XLG has dropped to 0.49 - well below their long-term average of 0.74, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CFA vs. XLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CFA	XLG
Industrials	18.4%	1.9%
Financial Services	18.3%	9.6%
Technology	14.9%	43.9%
Consumer Cyclical	9.8%	11.3%
Healthcare	9.5%	7.0%
Utilities	9.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.8%	5.8%
Energy	5.5%	2.7%
Basic Materials	3.6%	0.6%
Communication Services	3.6%	17.1%
Real Estate	0.5%	-

Return for Risk

CFA vs. XLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

CFA

CFA Risk / Return Rank: 40
CFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
CFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
CFA Omega Ratio Rank: 36
CFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
CFA Martin Ratio Rank: 46

XLG

XLG Risk / Return Rank: 62
XLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
XLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
XLG Omega Ratio Rank: 68
XLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
XLG Martin Ratio Rank: 55

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. XLG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG). 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.

	CFA	XLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.38	2.33	-0.95
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.05	3.14	-1.09
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.41	-0.17
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.07	2.55	-0.48
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	7.69	9.60	-1.91
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CFA vs. XLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CFA Sharpe Ratio is 1.38, which is lower than the XLG Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CFA and XLG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CFA	XLG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.38	2.33	-0.95
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.53	0.90	-0.37
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.67	0.93	-0.26
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.62	0.63	-0.01

Drawdowns

CFA vs. XLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CFA drawdown since its inception was -37.74%, smaller than the maximum XLG drawdown of -52.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CFA and XLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	CFA	XLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.74%	-52.39%	+14.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.13%	-12.41%	+5.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.28%	-20.70%	+3.42%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.88%	-28.02%	+7.14%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-37.74%	-30.46%	-7.28%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.29%	+0.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.17%	-7.64%	+3.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.92%	3.30%	-1.38%

Volatility

CFA vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) is 2.52%, while Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) has a volatility of 2.92%. This indicates that CFA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CFA	XLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.52%	2.92%	-0.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.86%	9.73%	-1.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.69%	13.28%	-2.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.06%	18.68%	-3.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.22%	18.84%	-1.62%

CFA vs. XLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

CFA has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than XLG's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

CFA vs. XLG - Dividend Comparison

CFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.23%, more than XLG's 0.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF	1.23%	1.29%	1.32%	1.42%	1.59%	1.04%	1.21%	1.35%	1.50%	1.15%	1.37%	1.31%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	0.59%	0.64%	0.72%	0.97%	1.34%	0.94%	1.25%	1.58%	2.00%	1.85%	2.00%	2.09%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CFA and XLG in my portfolio?

CFA and XLG have a correlation of 0.49, 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 XLG?

XLG has higher volatility (2.92%) compared to CFA (2.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CFA dropped -37.74% vs XLG's -52.39%.

Which ETF is better, CFA or XLG?

On 10-year performance, XLG leads with 17.41% vs 11.44% for CFA. On fees, XLG is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CFA has been the lower-risk option at 2.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CFA or XLG?

Over the 10-year period, XLG has performed better with a 17.41% return vs 11.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CFA or XLG?

XLG is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CFA.

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

CFA has the higher dividend yield at 1.23%, compared with 0.59% for XLG.

What is the main difference between CFA and XLG?

CFA is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while XLG is S&P 500. CFA tracks Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Volatility Weighted Index, while XLG tracks S&P 500 Top 50 Index. They also come from different issuers: VictoryShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CFA and 0.20% for XLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs 1.38), 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.