CGV vs. NISM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

CGV (Conductor Global Equity Value ETF) and NISM (NYLI International Small-Mid Cap Equity ETF) are both Foreign Small & Mid Cap Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Their 0.74 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CGV charges 1.25%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for NISM.

Performance

CGV vs. NISM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) and NYLI International Small-Mid Cap Equity ETF (NISM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

CGV

• 1D: -0.84%
• 1M: -0.50%
• 6M: 0.10%
• YTD: 7.68%
• 1Y: 19.89%
• 3Y*: 10.48%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 8.86%

NISM

• 1D: -0.48%
• 1M: 0.90%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

*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)
CGV Conductor Global Equity Value ETF	$245.64K	$227.68K	$307.26K
NISM NYLI International Small-Mid Cap Equity ETF	$2.13K	$1.70K	$7.87K

CGV vs. NISM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
CGV Conductor Global Equity Value ETF	-6.13%
NISM NYLI International Small-Mid Cap Equity ETF	-0.61%

Correlation

The correlation between CGV and NISM is 0.74, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 13, 2026	0.74

Return for Risk

CGV vs. NISM — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGV

CGV Risk / Return Rank: 51
CGV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
CGV Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
CGV Omega Ratio Rank: 56
CGV Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
CGV Martin Ratio Rank: 43

NISM

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

CGV vs. NISM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) and NYLI International Small-Mid Cap Equity ETF (NISM). 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	NISM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.91	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.69	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.67	—	—

Drawdowns

CGV vs. NISM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGV drawdown since its inception was -16.64%, which is greater than NISM's maximum drawdown of -4.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGV and NISM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGV	NISM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.64%	-4.35%	-12.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.13%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.64%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.46%	-0.68%	-6.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.78%	-1.80%	-1.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.37%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CGV	NISM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.23%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.90%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.06%	14.26%	+0.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.67%	14.26%	-0.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.67%	14.26%	-0.59%

CGV vs. NISM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGV has a 1.25% expense ratio, which is higher than NISM's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGV vs. NISM - Dividend Comparison

CGV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.86%, more than NISM's 0.24% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CGV Conductor Global Equity Value ETF	4.86%	4.58%	2.87%	4.56%	0.71%
NISM NYLI International Small-Mid Cap Equity ETF	0.24%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGV and NISM in my portfolio?

CGV and NISM have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CGV or NISM?

On fees, NISM is cheaper at 0.70% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGV or NISM?

NISM is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for CGV.

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

CGV has the higher dividend yield at 4.86%, compared with 0.24% for NISM.

What is the main difference between CGV and NISM?

They also come from different issuers: Conductor and New York Life. Their fees differ too: 1.25% for CGV and 0.70% for NISM.