EFAD vs. CIL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EFAD (ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF) and CIL (VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds - EFAD tracks the MSCI EAFE Dividend Masters Index while CIL tracks the Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EFAD returned 4.08%/yr vs 8.21%/yr for CIL. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EFAD charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CIL.

Performance

EFAD vs. CIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF (EFAD) 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, EFAD achieves a 1.98% return, which is significantly lower than CIL's 5.44% return. Over the past 10 years, EFAD has underperformed CIL with an annualized return of 4.08%, while CIL has yielded a comparatively higher 8.21% annualized return.

EFAD

• 1D: -0.94%
• 1M: 1.01%
• YTD: 1.98%
• 6M: 2.48%
• 1Y: 2.83%
• 3Y*: 6.48%
• 5Y*: 0.93%
• 10Y*: 4.08%

CIL

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 5.44%
• 6M: 7.94%
• 1Y: 17.37%
• 3Y*: 15.59%
• 5Y*: 7.45%
• 10Y*: 8.21%

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

EFAD vs. CIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EFAD ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF	1.98%	15.87%	-1.88%	11.91%	-21.34%	8.41%	8.75%	24.66%	-11.71%	22.14%
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%

Correlation

The correlation between EFAD and CIL 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	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2015	0.70

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

EFAD vs. CIL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EFAD	CIL
Healthcare	18.1%	7.7%
Industrials	15.6%	18.4%
Technology	15.5%	6.4%
Financial Services	13.9%	24.8%
Consumer Defensive	9.8%	8.8%
Basic Materials	8.7%	6.6%
Utilities	8.4%	6.6%
Communication Services	6.4%	5.8%
Real Estate	3.6%	2.2%
Energy	1.3%	4.6%
Consumer Cyclical	-	8.2%

Return for Risk

EFAD vs. CIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

EFAD

EFAD Risk / Return Rank: 12
EFAD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
EFAD Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
EFAD Omega Ratio Rank: 11
EFAD Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
EFAD Martin Ratio Rank: 13

CIL

CIL Risk / Return Rank: 76
CIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
CIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
CIL Omega Ratio Rank: 81
CIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
CIL Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

EFAD vs. CIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF (EFAD) 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.

	EFAD	CIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.21	2.24	-2.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.39	3.22	-2.83
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.49	-0.44
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.28	3.95	-3.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.92	16.75	-15.83
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EFAD vs. CIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFAD Sharpe Ratio is 0.21, which is lower than the CIL Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFAD 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EFAD	CIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21	2.24	-2.02
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.06	0.46	-0.39
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.26	0.48	-0.22
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.18	0.43	-0.26

Drawdowns

EFAD vs. CIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFAD drawdown since its inception was -35.74%, roughly equal to the maximum CIL drawdown of -36.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFAD and CIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	EFAD	CIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.74%	-36.27%	+0.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.18%	-4.60%	-5.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.35%	-11.96%	-1.39%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.74%	-29.89%	-5.85%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.74%	-36.27%	+0.53%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.70%	-0.58%	-3.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.32%	-6.56%	-3.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.09%	1.07%	+2.02%

Volatility

EFAD vs. CIL - Volatility Comparison

ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF (EFAD) has a higher volatility of 3.94% compared to VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) at 0.00%. This indicates that EFAD'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

	EFAD	CIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.94%	0.00%	+3.94%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.67%	4.23%	+6.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.27%	8.19%	+5.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.39%	16.49%	-2.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.67%	17.17%	-1.50%

EFAD vs. CIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFAD has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than CIL's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

EFAD vs. CIL - Dividend Comparison

EFAD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.82%, more than CIL's 1.67% 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%
EFAD ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF	2.82%	2.83%	2.64%	2.29%	1.76%	2.98%	1.49%	2.05%	2.37%	2.42%	2.88%	1.94%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EFAD and CIL in my portfolio?

EFAD and CIL 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.

Which is riskier, EFAD or CIL?

EFAD has higher volatility (3.94%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFAD dropped -35.74% vs CIL's -36.27%.

Which ETF is better, EFAD or CIL?

On 10-year performance, CIL leads with 8.21% vs 4.08% for EFAD. 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, EFAD or CIL?

Over the 10-year period, CIL has performed better with a 8.21% return vs 4.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EFAD or CIL?

CIL is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EFAD.

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

EFAD has the higher dividend yield at 2.82%, compared with 1.67% for CIL.

What is the main difference between EFAD and CIL?

EFAD tracks MSCI EAFE Dividend Masters Index, while CIL tracks Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Crestview. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EFAD and 0.45% for CIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 0.21), 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.