CGV vs. MMKT

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CGV (Conductor Global Equity Value ETF) and MMKT (Texas Capital Government Money Market ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGV is a Foreign Small & Mid Cap Equities fund actively managed by Conductor Fund, while MMKT is a Money Market fund actively managed by Texas Capital. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CGV returned 24.34% vs 3.79% for MMKT. At a 0.00 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGV charges 1.25%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for MMKT.

Performance

CGV vs. MMKT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) and Texas Capital Government Money Market ETF (MMKT). 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 higher than MMKT's 1.62% return.

CGV

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

MMKT

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.25%
• YTD: 1.62%
• 6M: 1.73%
• 1Y: 3.79%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CGV vs. MMKT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CGV Conductor Global Equity Value ETF	9.25%	23.11%	-6.64%
MMKT Texas Capital Government Money Market ETF	1.62%	4.13%	1.22%

Correlation

The correlation between CGV and MMKT is -0.08, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2024	0.00

Return for Risk

CGV vs. MMKT — 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

MMKT

MMKT Risk / Return Rank: 100
MMKT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
MMKT Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
MMKT Omega Ratio Rank: 100
MMKT Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
MMKT Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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. MMKT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) and Texas Capital Government Money Market ETF (MMKT). 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	MMKT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	16.76	-15.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.24	62.94	-60.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	15.54	-14.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.02	152.72	-150.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.88	913.70	-906.82

CGV vs. MMKT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGV Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is lower than the MMKT Sharpe Ratio of 16.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGV and MMKT, 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. MMKT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGV drawdown since its inception was -16.64%, which is greater than MMKT's maximum drawdown of -0.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGV and MMKT.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGV	MMKT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.64%	-0.04%	-16.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.13%	-0.02%	-12.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.64%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.11%	0.00%	-6.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.67%	-0.00%	-3.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.54%	0.00%	+3.54%

Volatility

CGV vs. MMKT - Volatility Comparison

Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) has a higher volatility of 5.76% compared to Texas Capital Government Money Market ETF (MMKT) at 0.05%. This indicates that CGV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MMKT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGV	MMKT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.76%	0.05%	+5.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.62%	0.13%	+12.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.78%	0.23%	+14.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.66%	0.23%	+13.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.66%	0.23%	+13.43%

CGV vs. MMKT - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGV has a 1.25% expense ratio, which is higher than MMKT's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGV vs. MMKT - Dividend Comparison

CGV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.02%, more than MMKT's 3.71% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CGV Conductor Global Equity Value ETF	5.02%	4.58%	2.87%	4.56%	0.71%
MMKT Texas Capital Government Money Market ETF	3.71%	3.98%	1.07%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGV and MMKT in my portfolio?

CGV and MMKT have a correlation of -0.08, 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 MMKT?

CGV has higher volatility (5.76%) compared to MMKT (0.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGV dropped -16.64% vs MMKT's -0.04%.

Which ETF is better, CGV or MMKT?

On 1-year performance, CGV leads with 24.34% vs 3.79% for MMKT. On fees, MMKT is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, MMKT has been the lower-risk option at 0.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGV or MMKT?

Over the 1-year period, CGV has performed better with a 24.34% return vs 3.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGV or MMKT?

MMKT is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for CGV.

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

CGV has the higher dividend yield at 5.02%, compared with 3.71% for MMKT.

What is the main difference between CGV and MMKT?

CGV is categorized as Foreign Small & Mid Cap Equities, while MMKT is Money Market. They also come from different issuers: Conductor Fund and Texas Capital. Their fees differ too: 1.25% for CGV and 0.20% for MMKT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MMKT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.76 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.