CGV vs. FDTS

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CGV (Conductor Global Equity Value ETF) and FDTS (First Trust Developed Markets ex-US Small Cap AlphaDEX Fund) are both Foreign Small & Mid Cap Equities funds. CGV is actively managed, while FDTS is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CGV returned 11.93%/yr vs 23.84%/yr for FDTS. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGV charges 1.25%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for FDTS.

Performance

CGV vs. FDTS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) and First Trust Developed Markets ex-US Small Cap AlphaDEX Fund (FDTS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGV achieves a 9.25% return, which is significantly lower than FDTS's 12.44% return.

CGV

• 1D: -0.53%
• 1M: -1.52%
• YTD: 9.25%
• 6M: 8.95%
• 1Y: 24.34%
• 3Y*: 11.93%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FDTS

• 1D: -3.77%
• 1M: -6.39%
• YTD: 12.44%
• 6M: 12.40%
• 1Y: 36.22%
• 3Y*: 23.84%
• 5Y*: 9.93%
• 10Y*: 10.51%

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

CGV vs. FDTS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CGV Conductor Global Equity Value ETF	9.25%	23.11%	-3.34%	5.72%	3.64%
FDTS First Trust Developed Markets ex-US Small Cap AlphaDEX Fund	12.44%	51.17%	2.44%	10.96%	-1.00%

Correlation

The correlation between CGV and FDTS is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2022	0.77

The correlation between CGV and FDTS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGV vs. FDTS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGV	FDTS
Basic Materials	21.2%	11.3%
Industrials	14.3%	22.2%
Consumer Defensive	12.6%	4.7%
Energy	11.7%	4.0%
Technology	11.7%	14.1%
Consumer Cyclical	10.3%	18.9%
Financial Services	5.2%	11.9%
Healthcare	4.2%	2.8%
Utilities	4.0%	2.7%
Communication Services	3.6%	3.2%
Real Estate	1.2%	4.3%

Return for Risk

CGV vs. FDTS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGV

CGV Risk / Return Rank: 46
CGV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
CGV Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
CGV Omega Ratio Rank: 48
CGV Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
CGV Martin Ratio Rank: 43

FDTS

FDTS Risk / Return Rank: 60
FDTS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
FDTS Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
FDTS Omega Ratio Rank: 62
FDTS Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
FDTS Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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. FDTS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) and First Trust Developed Markets ex-US Small Cap AlphaDEX Fund (FDTS). 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	FDTS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	1.95	-0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.24	2.62	-0.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.35	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.02	2.89	-0.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.88	9.60	-2.72

CGV vs. FDTS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGV Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is comparable to the FDTS Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGV and FDTS, 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. FDTS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGV drawdown since its inception was -16.64%, smaller than the maximum FDTS drawdown of -51.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGV and FDTS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGV	FDTS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.64%	-51.26%	+34.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.13%	-12.61%	+0.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.64%	-13.19%	-3.45%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.11%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-51.26%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.11%	-9.86%	+3.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.67%	-10.64%	+6.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.54%	3.78%	-0.24%

Volatility

CGV vs. FDTS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) is 5.76%, while First Trust Developed Markets ex-US Small Cap AlphaDEX Fund (FDTS) has a volatility of 9.16%. This indicates that CGV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FDTS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGV	FDTS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.76%	9.16%	-3.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.62%	16.13%	-3.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.78%	18.63%	-3.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.66%	29.47%	-15.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.66%	24.85%	-11.19%

CGV vs. FDTS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGV has a 1.25% expense ratio, which is higher than FDTS's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGV vs. FDTS - Dividend Comparison

CGV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.02%, more than FDTS's 2.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGV Conductor Global Equity Value ETF	5.02%	4.58%	2.87%	4.56%	0.71%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FDTS First Trust Developed Markets ex-US Small Cap AlphaDEX Fund	2.67%	2.94%	3.94%	2.90%	3.71%	3.01%	2.02%	2.30%	1.96%	2.08%	1.78%	1.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGV and FDTS in my portfolio?

CGV and FDTS have a correlation of 0.83, 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 FDTS?

FDTS has higher volatility (9.16%) compared to CGV (5.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGV dropped -16.64% vs FDTS's -51.26%.

Which ETF is better, CGV or FDTS?

On 3-year performance, FDTS leads with 23.84% vs 11.93% for CGV. On fees, FDTS is cheaper at 0.80% per year. On volatility, CGV has been the lower-risk option at 5.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGV or FDTS?

Over the 3-year period, FDTS has performed better with a 23.84% return vs 11.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGV or FDTS?

FDTS is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for CGV.

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

CGV has the higher dividend yield at 5.02%, compared with 2.67% for FDTS.

What is the main difference between CGV and FDTS?

They also come from different issuers: Conductor Fund and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 1.25% for CGV and 0.80% for FDTS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FDTS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.95 vs 1.66), 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.