EAFG vs. CIL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EAFG (Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) and CIL (VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds - EAFG tracks the Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index while CIL tracks the Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, EAFG returned 24.38% vs 16.95% for CIL. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EAFG charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CIL.

Performance

EAFG vs. CIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (EAFG) and VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EAFG achieves a 11.36% return, which is significantly higher than CIL's 5.44% return.

EAFG

• 1D: -3.66%
• 1M: 1.71%
• YTD: 11.36%
• 6M: 10.83%
• 1Y: 24.38%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CIL

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 5.44%
• 6M: 5.34%
• 1Y: 16.95%
• 3Y*: 15.96%
• 5Y*: 7.55%
• 10Y*: 8.21%

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

EAFG vs. CIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EAFG Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	11.36%	26.39%	-5.92%
CIL VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF	5.44%	32.99%	-0.43%

Correlation

The correlation between EAFG and CIL is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.73

The correlation between EAFG and CIL shifts across timeframes, from 0.55 (1 year) to 0.73 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EAFG vs. CIL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EAFG	CIL
Technology	21.2%	6.4%
Basic Materials	17.0%	6.6%
Industrials	15.1%	18.4%
Healthcare	11.2%	7.7%
Communication Services	9.5%	5.8%
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	8.2%
Consumer Defensive	6.8%	8.8%
Energy	2.4%	4.6%
Utilities	0.5%	6.6%
Financial Services	0.5%	24.8%
Real Estate	-	2.2%

Return for Risk

EAFG vs. CIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

EAFG

EAFG Risk / Return Rank: 41
EAFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
EAFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
EAFG Omega Ratio Rank: 39
EAFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
EAFG Martin Ratio Rank: 46

CIL

CIL Risk / Return Rank: 83
CIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
CIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
CIL Omega Ratio Rank: 90
CIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
CIL Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

EAFG vs. CIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (EAFG) and VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL). 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.

	EAFG	CIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.33	2.32	-1.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.85	3.41	-1.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.54	-0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.93	3.85	-1.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.06	16.75	-9.69

EAFG vs. CIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EAFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is lower than the CIL Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EAFG and CIL, 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

EAFG vs. CIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EAFG drawdown since its inception was -16.47%, smaller than the maximum CIL drawdown of -36.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EAFG and CIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	EAFG	CIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.47%	-36.27%	+19.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.71%	-4.60%	-8.11%
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.66%	-0.58%	-3.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.16%	-6.53%	+3.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.46%	1.07%	+2.39%

Volatility

EAFG vs. CIL - Volatility Comparison

Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (EAFG) has a higher volatility of 7.56% compared to VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) at 0.00%. This indicates that EAFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EAFG	CIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.56%	0.00%	+7.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.20%	3.38%	+12.82%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.51%	7.66%	+10.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.69%	16.47%	+1.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.69%	17.08%	+0.61%

EAFG vs. CIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

EAFG has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than CIL's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

EAFG vs. CIL - Dividend Comparison

EAFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.96%, more than CIL's 1.20% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CIL VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF	1.20%	2.70%	3.46%	2.91%	2.41%	3.04%	1.73%	2.69%	2.85%	2.17%	2.34%	0.43%
EAFG Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	1.96%	1.31%	1.99%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EAFG and CIL in my portfolio?

EAFG and CIL have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EAFG or CIL?

EAFG has higher volatility (7.56%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EAFG dropped -16.47% vs CIL's -36.27%.

Which ETF is better, EAFG or CIL?

On 1-year performance, EAFG leads with 24.38% vs 16.95% for CIL. On fees, CIL is cheaper at 0.45% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, EAFG or CIL?

Over the 1-year period, EAFG has performed better with a 24.38% return vs 16.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EAFG or CIL?

CIL is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for EAFG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EAFG or CIL?

EAFG has the higher dividend yield at 1.96%, compared with 1.20% for CIL.

What is the main difference between EAFG and CIL?

EAFG tracks Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index, while CIL tracks Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Crestview. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for EAFG and 0.45% for CIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 1.33), 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.