CGV vs. CAOS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CGV (Conductor Global Equity Value ETF) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGV is a Foreign Small & Mid Cap Equities fund actively managed by Conductor Fund, while CAOS is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CGV returned 11.34%/yr vs 3.94%/yr for CAOS. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGV charges 1.25%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.

Performance

CGV vs. CAOS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGV achieves a 7.53% return, which is significantly higher than CAOS's 0.71% return.

CGV

• 1D: -1.57%
• 1M: -3.07%
• YTD: 7.53%
• 6M: 6.77%
• 1Y: 21.28%
• 3Y*: 11.34%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CAOS

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: -0.12%
• YTD: 0.71%
• 6M: 0.61%
• 1Y: 1.62%
• 3Y*: 3.94%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CGV vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CGV Conductor Global Equity Value ETF	7.53%	23.11%	-3.34%	4.11%
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.71%	2.55%	5.33%	7.43%

Correlation

The correlation between CGV and CAOS is -0.21, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.21
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2023	0.04

The correlation between CGV and CAOS shifts across timeframes, from -0.21 (1 year) to 0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CGV vs. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGV

CGV Risk / Return Rank: 42
CGV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
CGV Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
CGV Omega Ratio Rank: 43
CGV Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
CGV Martin Ratio Rank: 40

CAOS

CAOS Risk / Return Rank: 36
CAOS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
CAOS Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
CAOS Omega Ratio Rank: 34
CAOS Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
CAOS Martin Ratio Rank: 36

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.

CGV vs. CAOS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). 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.

	CGV	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.44	1.08	+0.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.97	1.72	+0.25
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.22	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.76	2.15	-0.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.96	5.18	+0.79

CGV vs. CAOS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGV Sharpe Ratio is 1.44, which is higher than the CAOS Sharpe Ratio of 1.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGV and CAOS, 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

CGV vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGV drawdown since its inception was -16.64%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGV and CAOS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGV	CAOS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.64%	-3.89%	-12.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.13%	-0.76%	-11.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.64%	-3.60%	-13.04%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.59%	-1.18%	-6.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.67%	-0.92%	-2.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.58%	0.32%	+3.26%

Volatility

CGV vs. CAOS - Volatility Comparison

Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) has a higher volatility of 5.95% compared to Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) at 0.32%. This indicates that CGV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAOS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGV	CAOS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.95%	0.32%	+5.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.72%	1.05%	+11.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.84%	1.50%	+13.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.68%	4.23%	+9.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.68%	4.23%	+9.45%

CGV vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGV has a 1.25% expense ratio, which is higher than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGV vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison

CGV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.10%, while CAOS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CGV Conductor Global Equity Value ETF	5.10%	4.58%	2.87%	4.56%	0.71%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGV and CAOS in my portfolio?

CGV and CAOS have a correlation of -0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGV or CAOS?

CGV has higher volatility (5.95%) compared to CAOS (0.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGV dropped -16.64% vs CAOS's -3.89%.

Which ETF is better, CGV or CAOS?

On 3-year performance, CGV leads with 11.34% vs 3.94% for CAOS. On fees, CAOS is cheaper at 0.63% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGV or CAOS?

Over the 3-year period, CGV has performed better with a 11.34% return vs 3.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGV or CAOS?

CAOS is cheaper with a 0.63% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for CGV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGV or CAOS?

CGV has the higher dividend yield at 5.10%, compared with 0.00% for CAOS.

What is the main difference between CGV and CAOS?

CGV is categorized as Foreign Small & Mid Cap Equities, while CAOS is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: Conductor Fund and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 1.25% for CGV and 0.63% for CAOS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.44 vs 1.08), 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.