PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CIL vs. CDC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CIL vs. CDC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) and VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF (CDC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CIL achieves a 5.44% return, which is significantly lower than CDC's 11.20% return. Over the past 10 years, CIL has underperformed CDC with an annualized return of 8.21%, while CDC has yielded a comparatively higher 10.09% annualized return.


CIL

1D
0.00%
1M
0.00%
YTD
5.44%
6M
8.27%
1Y
16.20%
3Y*
15.59%
5Y*
7.45%
10Y*
8.21%

CDC

1D
0.58%
1M
-0.84%
YTD
11.20%
6M
11.54%
1Y
19.16%
3Y*
12.19%
5Y*
5.25%
10Y*
10.09%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CIL vs. CDC - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CIL
VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF
5.44%32.99%3.76%16.29%-16.00%11.07%7.21%19.13%-13.34%27.67%
CDC
VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF
11.20%8.96%14.48%-4.99%-7.86%33.05%12.88%19.64%-5.97%15.77%

Correlation

The correlation between CIL and CDC is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.40

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.46

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.49

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.49

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2015

0.48

CIL vs. CDC - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CIL
CDC

Financial Services

24.8%
23.4%

Industrials

18.4%
2.3%

Consumer Defensive

8.8%
15.9%

Consumer Cyclical

8.2%
6.6%

Healthcare

7.7%
6.8%

Utilities

6.6%
24.3%

Basic Materials

6.6%
0.0%

Technology

6.4%
6.9%

Communication Services

5.8%
4.4%

Energy

4.6%
9.5%

Real Estate

2.2%
0.0%

Financial Services

CIL
24.8%
CDC
23.4%

Industrials

CIL
18.4%
CDC
2.3%

Consumer Defensive

CIL
8.8%
CDC
15.9%

Consumer Cyclical

CIL
8.2%
CDC
6.6%

Healthcare

CIL
7.7%
CDC
6.8%

Utilities

CIL
6.6%
CDC
24.3%

Basic Materials

CIL
6.6%
CDC
0.0%

Technology

CIL
6.4%
CDC
6.9%

Communication Services

CIL
5.8%
CDC
4.4%

Energy

CIL
4.6%
CDC
9.5%

Real Estate

CIL
2.2%
CDC
0.0%

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

CIL vs. CDC — Risk / Return Rank

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

CIL
CIL Risk / Return Rank: 7373
Overall Rank
CIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 6262
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIL Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
CIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIL Martin Ratio Rank: 8686
Martin Ratio Rank

CDC
CDC Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
CDC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CDC Sortino Ratio Rank: 6262
Sortino Ratio Rank
CDC Omega Ratio Rank: 5454
Omega Ratio Rank
CDC Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
CDC Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

CIL vs. CDC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) and VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF (CDC). 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.


CILCDCDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.07

1.97

+0.09

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.96

2.93

+0.04

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.45

1.34

+0.11

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

4.32

3.44

+0.88

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

18.62

12.19

+6.43

CIL vs. CDC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIL Sharpe Ratio is 2.07, which is comparable to the CDC Sharpe Ratio of 1.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIL and CDC, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CILCDCDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.07

1.97

+0.09

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.46

0.42

+0.04

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

0.77

-0.28

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.43

0.75

-0.31

Drawdowns

CIL vs. CDC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIL drawdown since its inception was -36.27%, which is greater than CDC's maximum drawdown of -21.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIL and CDC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CILCDCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.27%

-21.37%

-14.90%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.60%

-5.67%

+1.07%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-11.96%

-12.70%

+0.74%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.89%

-21.37%

-8.52%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.27%

-21.37%

-14.90%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.58%

-1.65%

+1.07%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.56%

-5.10%

-1.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.07%

1.60%

-0.53%

Volatility

CIL vs. CDC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) is 0.00%, while VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF (CDC) has a volatility of 2.80%. This indicates that CIL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CDC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CILCDCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.00%

2.80%

-2.80%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.42%

6.90%

-2.48%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.26%

9.75%

-1.49%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.49%

12.54%

+3.95%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.18%

13.21%

+3.97%

CIL vs. CDC - Expense Ratio Comparison

CIL has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than CDC's 0.37% expense ratio.


Dividends

CIL vs. CDC - Dividend Comparison

CIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%, less than CDC's 3.16% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CDC
VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF
3.16%3.36%3.32%4.24%3.48%2.65%2.48%3.04%3.37%2.81%2.99%3.17%
CIL
VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF
1.67%2.70%3.46%2.91%2.41%3.04%1.73%2.69%2.85%2.17%2.34%0.43%

Frequently Asked Questions


CIL and CDC have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CDC has higher volatility (2.80%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CIL dropped -36.27% vs CDC's -21.37%.

On 10-year performance, CDC leads with 10.09% vs 8.21% for CIL. On fees, CDC is cheaper at 0.37% per year. On volatility, CIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, CDC has performed better with a 10.09% return vs 8.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CDC is cheaper with a 0.37% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CIL.

CDC has the higher dividend yield at 3.16%, compared with 1.67% for CIL.

CIL is categorized as Foreign Large Cap Equities, while CDC is Large Cap Value Equities. CIL tracks Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index, while CDC tracks Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap High Dividend 100 Long/Cash Volatility Weighted Index. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CIL and 0.37% for CDC.

CIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs 1.97), 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 CIL and CDC

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