CFO vs. ACWV

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

CFO (VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CFO is a Low Volatility fund tracking the Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Long/Cash Volatility Weighted Index, while ACWV is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CFO returned 9.55%/yr vs 7.18%/yr for ACWV. Their 0.80 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CFO charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

CFO vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF (CFO) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CFO achieves a 10.37% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 5.75% return. Over the past 10 years, CFO has outperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 9.55%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively lower 7.18% annualized return.

CFO

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.35%
• 6M: 7.16%
• YTD: 10.37%
• 1Y: 15.46%
• 3Y*: 10.18%
• 5Y*: 4.08%
• 10Y*: 9.55%
• ALL TIME*: 8.79%

ACWV

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: 1.99%
• 6M: 4.00%
• YTD: 5.75%
• 1Y: 8.69%
• 3Y*: 10.41%
• 5Y*: 5.79%
• 10Y*: 7.18%
• ALL TIME*: 8.75%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	$12.13M	$11.24M	$12.40M
CFO VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF	$401.90K	$354.93K	$366.84K

CFO vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CFO VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF	10.37%	8.60%	15.37%	-3.56%	-14.46%	26.02%	19.84%	21.64%	-8.81%	22.65%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	5.75%	11.04%	11.38%	8.23%	-10.36%	13.97%	3.04%	21.04%	-1.42%	18.57%

Correlation

The correlation between CFO and ACWV is 0.70, 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.	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.75
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.78
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2014	0.80

The correlation between CFO and ACWV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

CFO vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CFO	ACWV
Industrials	18.6%	8.1%
Financial Services	18.1%	13.5%
Technology	16.6%	25.3%
Healthcare	9.8%	13.8%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	5.3%
Utilities	8.7%	7.5%
Consumer Defensive	6.6%	9.7%
Energy	4.8%	3.5%
Basic Materials	3.5%	1.5%
Communication Services	3.2%	11.3%
Real Estate	0.4%	0.6%

Return for Risk

CFO vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

CFO

CFO Risk / Return Rank: 57
CFO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
CFO Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
CFO Omega Ratio Rank: 52
CFO Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
CFO Martin Ratio Rank: 63

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 44
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 45
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

CFO vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF (CFO) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.

	CFO	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	1.14	+0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.98	1.71	+0.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.21	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.03	1.45	+0.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.64	4.10	+3.54

CFO vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CFO Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is comparable to the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CFO and ACWV, 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

CFO vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CFO drawdown since its inception was -24.35%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CFO and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	CFO	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.35%	-28.82%	+4.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.10%	-6.37%	-0.73%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.25%	-7.56%	-9.69%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.35%	-18.14%	-6.21%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.35%	-28.82%	+4.47%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.25%	-0.36%	-0.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.55%	-3.10%	-2.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.88%	2.24%	-0.36%

Volatility

CFO vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF (CFO) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) have volatilities of 2.67% and 2.56%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	CFO	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.67%	2.56%	+0.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.84%	6.41%	+1.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.77%	8.08%	+2.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.29%	10.30%	+2.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.17%	12.30%	+0.87%

CFO vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

CFO has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

CFO vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

CFO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, less than ACWV's 1.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.90%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
CFO VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF	1.22%	1.32%	1.44%	1.72%	3.95%	1.06%	0.90%	1.44%	1.49%	1.18%	1.35%	1.31%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CFO and ACWV in my portfolio?

CFO and ACWV have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CFO or ACWV?

CFO has higher volatility (2.67%) compared to ACWV (2.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CFO dropped -24.35% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, CFO or ACWV?

On 10-year performance, CFO leads with 9.55% vs 7.18% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CFO or ACWV?

Over the 10-year period, CFO has performed better with a 9.55% return vs 7.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CFO or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CFO.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CFO or ACWV?

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.90%, compared with 1.22% for CFO.

What is the main difference between CFO and ACWV?

CFO is categorized as Low Volatility, while ACWV is Global Equities. CFO tracks Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Long/Cash Volatility Weighted Index, while ACWV tracks MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. They also come from different issuers: VictoryShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CFO and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CFO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.34 vs 1.14), 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.