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

Performance

CIL vs. EFAV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) and iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF (EFAV). 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 higher than EFAV's 4.53% return. Over the past 10 years, CIL has outperformed EFAV with an annualized return of 8.21%, while EFAV has yielded a comparatively lower 6.00% 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%

EFAV

1D
0.10%
1M
-1.48%
YTD
4.53%
6M
6.20%
1Y
9.18%
3Y*
13.13%
5Y*
6.49%
10Y*
6.00%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CIL vs. EFAV - 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%
EFAV
iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF
4.53%26.00%5.30%12.52%-15.11%7.20%-0.06%16.67%-5.74%22.24%

Correlation

The correlation between CIL and EFAV is 0.63, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


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

0.63

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

0.82

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

0.75

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

0.70

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

0.69

The correlation between CIL and EFAV shifts across timeframes, from 0.63 (1 year) to 0.82 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CIL vs. EFAV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CIL
EFAV

Financial Services

24.8%
19.9%

Industrials

18.4%
15.1%

Consumer Defensive

8.8%
11.5%

Consumer Cyclical

8.2%
5.2%

Healthcare

7.7%
12.4%

Utilities

6.6%
9.1%

Basic Materials

6.6%
1.6%

Technology

6.4%
4.5%

Communication Services

5.8%
9.7%

Energy

4.6%
8.2%

Real Estate

2.2%
2.9%

Financial Services

CIL
24.8%
EFAV
19.9%

Industrials

CIL
18.4%
EFAV
15.1%

Consumer Defensive

CIL
8.8%
EFAV
11.5%

Consumer Cyclical

CIL
8.2%
EFAV
5.2%

Healthcare

CIL
7.7%
EFAV
12.4%

Utilities

CIL
6.6%
EFAV
9.1%

Basic Materials

CIL
6.6%
EFAV
1.6%

Technology

CIL
6.4%
EFAV
4.5%

Communication Services

CIL
5.8%
EFAV
9.7%

Energy

CIL
4.6%
EFAV
8.2%

Real Estate

CIL
2.2%
EFAV
2.9%

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. EFAV — 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

EFAV
EFAV Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
EFAV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2525
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EFAV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
EFAV Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
EFAV Calmar Ratio Rank: 3232
Calmar Ratio Rank
EFAV Martin Ratio Rank: 3131
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. EFAV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) and iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF (EFAV). 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.


CILEFAVDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.07

0.89

+1.17

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.96

1.30

+1.66

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.45

1.16

+0.28

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

4.32

1.59

+2.73

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

18.62

4.53

+14.10

CIL vs. EFAV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIL Sharpe Ratio is 2.07, which is higher than the EFAV Sharpe Ratio of 0.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIL and EFAV, 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


CILEFAVDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.07

0.89

+1.17

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.46

0.55

-0.10

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

0.46

+0.03

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.43

0.54

-0.10

Drawdowns

CIL vs. EFAV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIL drawdown since its inception was -36.27%, which is greater than EFAV's maximum drawdown of -27.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIL and EFAV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CILEFAVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.27%

-27.56%

-8.71%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.60%

-6.46%

+1.86%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-11.96%

-8.75%

-3.21%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.89%

-27.46%

-2.43%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.27%

-27.56%

-8.71%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.58%

-4.96%

+4.38%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.56%

-4.77%

-1.79%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.07%

2.27%

-1.20%

Volatility

CIL vs. EFAV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) is 0.00%, while iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF (EFAV) has a volatility of 3.27%. This indicates that CIL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EFAV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CILEFAVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.00%

3.27%

-3.27%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.42%

8.15%

-3.73%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.26%

10.37%

-2.11%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.49%

11.79%

+4.70%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.18%

13.21%

+3.97%

CIL vs. EFAV - Expense Ratio Comparison

CIL has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than EFAV's 0.20% expense ratio.


Dividends

CIL vs. EFAV - Dividend Comparison

CIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%, less than EFAV's 3.06% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
EFAV
iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF
3.06%3.20%3.24%3.08%2.53%2.47%1.33%4.19%3.34%2.45%3.94%2.49%

Frequently Asked Questions


CIL and EFAV have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EFAV has higher volatility (3.27%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CIL dropped -36.27% vs EFAV's -27.56%.

On 10-year performance, CIL leads with 8.21% vs 6.00% for EFAV. On fees, EFAV is cheaper at 0.20% 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, CIL has performed better with a 8.21% return vs 6.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EFAV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CIL.

EFAV has the higher dividend yield at 3.06%, compared with 1.67% for CIL.

CIL tracks Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index, while EFAV tracks MSCI EAFE Minimum Volatility Index. They also come from different issuers: Crestview and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CIL and 0.20% for EFAV.

CIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs 0.89), 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 EFAV

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