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

Performance

CFO vs. CFA - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with CFO having a 10.37% return and CFA slightly lower at 10.24%. Over the past 10 years, CFO has underperformed CFA with an annualized return of 9.55%, while CFA has yielded a comparatively higher 11.58% 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%

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%
*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
$401.90K$354.93K$366.84K

CFO vs. CFA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
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%

Correlation

The correlation between CFO and CFA is 1.00 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

1.00

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

0.98

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

0.96

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

0.97

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

0.93

The correlation between CFO and CFA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 1.00 - a consistent structural relationship.

CFO vs. CFA - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CFO
CFA

Industrials

18.6%
18.6%

Financial Services

18.1%
18.1%

Technology

16.6%
16.6%

Healthcare

9.8%
9.8%

Consumer Cyclical

9.6%
9.6%

Utilities

8.7%
8.7%

Consumer Defensive

6.6%
6.6%

Energy

4.8%
4.8%

Basic Materials

3.5%
3.5%

Communication Services

3.2%
3.2%

Real Estate

0.4%
0.4%

Industrials

CFO
18.6%
CFA
18.6%

Financial Services

CFO
18.1%
CFA
18.1%

Technology

CFO
16.6%
CFA
16.6%

Healthcare

CFO
9.8%
CFA
9.8%

Consumer Cyclical

CFO
9.6%
CFA
9.6%

Utilities

CFO
8.7%
CFA
8.7%

Consumer Defensive

CFO
6.6%
CFA
6.6%

Energy

CFO
4.8%
CFA
4.8%

Basic Materials

CFO
3.5%
CFA
3.5%

Communication Services

CFO
3.2%
CFA
3.2%

Real Estate

CFO
0.4%
CFA
0.4%

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

CFO vs. CFA — Risk / Return Rank

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

CFO
CFO Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
CFO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CFO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
CFO Omega Ratio Rank: 5252
Omega Ratio Rank
CFO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
CFO Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank

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
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. CFA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF (CFO) and VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA). 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.


CFOCFADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

0.00

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.01

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.24

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.03

2.01

+0.02

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.64

7.58

+0.07

CFO vs. CFA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

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

CFO vs. CFA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CFO drawdown since its inception was -24.35%, smaller than the maximum CFA drawdown of -37.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CFO and CFA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CFOCFADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-24.35%

-37.74%

+13.39%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.10%

-7.13%

+0.03%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.25%

-17.28%

+0.03%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.35%

-20.88%

-3.47%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-24.35%

-37.74%

+13.39%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.25%

-1.36%

+0.11%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.55%

-4.12%

-1.43%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.88%

1.89%

-0.01%

Volatility

CFO vs. CFA - Volatility Comparison

VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF (CFO) and VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) have volatilities of 2.67% and 2.68%, 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


CFOCFADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.67%

2.68%

-0.01%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.84%

7.88%

-0.04%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.77%

10.75%

+0.02%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.29%

15.03%

-1.74%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.17%

17.14%

-3.97%

CFO vs. CFA - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CFO and CFA have an expense ratio of 0.35%.


Dividends

CFO vs. CFA - Dividend Comparison

CFO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, which matches CFA's 1.22% 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%
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


With a correlation of 1.00, CFO and CFA move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

CFA has higher volatility (2.68%) compared to CFO (2.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CFO dropped -24.35% vs CFA's -37.74%.

On 10-year performance, CFA leads with 11.58% vs 9.55% for CFO. Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. Their volatility is very similar. 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 9.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CFO and CFA have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.

CFO and CFA have nearly identical dividend yields, around 1.22%.

CFO tracks Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Long/Cash Volatility Weighted Index, while CFA tracks Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Volatility Weighted Index.

CFO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.34 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 CFO and CFA

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