CIL vs. NVOH
CIL (VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF) and NVOH (Novo Nordisk A/S (B Shares) ADRhedged ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. CIL is passively managed, while NVOH is actively managed. Over the past year, CIL returned 16.20% vs -37.68% for NVOH. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CIL charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for NVOH.
Performance
CIL vs. NVOH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CIL achieves a 5.44% return, which is significantly higher than NVOH's -12.05% 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%
NVOH
- 1D
- -2.32%
- 1M
- -0.85%
- YTD
- -12.05%
- 6M
- -6.54%
- 1Y
- -37.68%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CIL vs. NVOH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CIL VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF | 5.44% | 31.84% |
NVOH Novo Nordisk A/S (B Shares) ADRhedged ETF | -12.05% | -42.98% |
Correlation
The correlation between CIL and NVOH is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.26 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 8, 2025 | 0.25 |
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. NVOH — Risk / Return Rank
CIL
NVOH
CIL vs. NVOH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) and Novo Nordisk A/S (B Shares) ADRhedged ETF (NVOH). 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.
| CIL | NVOH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.07 | -0.77 | +2.83 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.96 | -0.89 | +3.85 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.45 | 0.87 | +0.57 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.32 | -0.70 | +5.02 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 18.62 | -1.03 | +19.65 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CIL | NVOH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.07 | -0.77 | +2.83 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.46 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.48 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.43 | -0.80 | +1.23 |
Drawdowns
CIL vs. NVOH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CIL drawdown since its inception was -36.27%, smaller than the maximum NVOH drawdown of -61.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIL and NVOH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CIL | NVOH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -36.27% | -61.60% | +25.33% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.60% | -53.00% | +48.40% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -11.96% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.89% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -36.27% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.58% | -53.72% | +53.14% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.56% | -38.26% | +31.70% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.07% | 35.98% | -34.91% |
Volatility
CIL vs. NVOH - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) is 0.00%, while Novo Nordisk A/S (B Shares) ADRhedged ETF (NVOH) has a volatility of 7.01%. This indicates that CIL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NVOH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CIL | NVOH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.00% | 7.01% | -7.01% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.42% | 36.21% | -31.79% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 8.26% | 49.39% | -41.13% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.49% | 49.09% | -32.60% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.18% | 49.09% | -31.91% |
CIL vs. NVOH - Expense Ratio Comparison
CIL has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than NVOH's 0.19% expense ratio.
Dividends
CIL vs. NVOH - Dividend Comparison
CIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%, less than NVOH's 3.90% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
NVOH Novo Nordisk A/S (B Shares) ADRhedged ETF | 3.90% | 2.38% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CIL and NVOH have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
NVOH has higher volatility (7.01%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CIL dropped -36.27% vs NVOH's -61.60%.
On 1-year performance, CIL leads with 16.20% vs -37.68% for NVOH. On fees, NVOH is cheaper at 0.19% 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 1-year period, CIL has performed better with a 16.20% return vs -37.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
NVOH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CIL.
NVOH has the higher dividend yield at 3.90%, compared with 1.67% for CIL.
They also come from different issuers: Crestview and Precidian. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CIL and 0.19% for NVOH.
CIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs -0.77), 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.
Find the right allocation for CIL and NVOH
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