CFA vs. XLG
Compare and contrast key facts about VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Wtd ETF (CFA) and Invesco S&P 500® Top 50 ETF (XLG).
CFA and XLG are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CFA is a passively managed fund by Crestview that tracks the performance of the Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Volatility Weighted Index. It was launched on Jul 2, 2014. XLG is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the Russell Top 50 Index. It was launched on May 10, 2005. Both CFA and XLG are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: CFA or XLG.
Correlation
The correlation between CFA and XLG is 0.76, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
CFA vs. XLG - Performance Comparison
Key characteristics
CFA:
1.56
XLG:
2.42
CFA:
2.22
XLG:
3.13
CFA:
1.28
XLG:
1.45
CFA:
2.45
XLG:
3.22
CFA:
8.50
XLG:
13.27
CFA:
2.03%
XLG:
2.75%
CFA:
11.04%
XLG:
15.08%
CFA:
-37.74%
XLG:
-52.39%
CFA:
-5.84%
XLG:
-0.99%
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CFA achieves a 16.32% return, which is significantly lower than XLG's 36.25% return. Over the past 10 years, CFA has underperformed XLG with an annualized return of 10.49%, while XLG has yielded a comparatively higher 15.28% annualized return.
CFA
16.32%
-4.87%
7.66%
16.71%
10.26%
10.49%
XLG
36.25%
3.99%
12.99%
36.57%
18.40%
15.28%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CFA vs. XLG - Expense Ratio Comparison
CFA has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than XLG's 0.20% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
CFA vs. XLG - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Wtd 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.
Dividends
CFA vs. XLG - Dividend Comparison
CFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%, more than XLG's 0.71% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Wtd ETF | 1.31% | 1.42% | 1.59% | 1.04% | 1.21% | 1.35% | 1.50% | 1.14% | 1.37% | 1.31% | 0.63% | 0.00% |
XLG Invesco S&P 500® Top 50 ETF | 0.71% | 0.97% | 1.34% | 0.94% | 1.25% | 1.58% | 2.00% | 1.85% | 2.00% | 2.09% | 1.97% | 1.97% |
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. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
CFA vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Wtd ETF (CFA) is 3.62%, while Invesco S&P 500® Top 50 ETF (XLG) has a volatility of 4.19%. 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.