EFG vs. CIL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EFG (iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF) and CIL (VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds - EFG tracks the MSCI EAFE Growth Index while CIL tracks the Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EFG returned 7.96%/yr vs 8.21%/yr for CIL. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EFG charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CIL.

Performance

EFG vs. CIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF (EFG) 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, EFG achieves a 7.91% return, which is significantly higher than CIL's 5.44% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with EFG having a 7.96% annualized return and CIL not far ahead at 8.21%.

EFG

• 1D: -0.78%
• 1M: 4.62%
• YTD: 7.91%
• 6M: 9.06%
• 1Y: 14.40%
• 3Y*: 10.91%
• 5Y*: 4.23%
• 10Y*: 7.96%

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)

EFG vs. CIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EFG iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF	7.91%	20.70%	1.53%	17.55%	-23.12%	11.01%	17.85%	27.47%	-12.93%	28.86%
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 EFG and CIL is 0.65, 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	0.65
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	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2015	0.71

The correlation between EFG and CIL shifts across timeframes, from 0.65 (1 year) to 0.82 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EFG vs. CIL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EFG	CIL
Industrials	29.6%	18.4%
Technology	18.1%	6.4%
Healthcare	14.2%	7.7%
Consumer Cyclical	10.7%	8.2%
Financial Services	10.6%	24.8%
Consumer Defensive	5.1%	8.8%
Communication Services	4.8%	5.8%
Basic Materials	4.6%	6.6%
Utilities	1.1%	6.6%
Real Estate	1.0%	2.2%
Energy	0.2%	4.6%

Return for Risk

EFG vs. CIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

EFG

EFG Risk / Return Rank: 25
EFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
EFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
EFG Omega Ratio Rank: 22
EFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
EFG Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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.

EFG vs. CIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF (EFG) 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.

	EFG	CIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.85	2.24	-1.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.32	3.22	-1.90
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.49	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.13	3.95	-2.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.17	16.75	-12.58
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EFG vs. CIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFG Sharpe Ratio is 0.85, which is lower than the CIL Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFG 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

	EFG	CIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85	2.24	-1.39
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.23	0.46	-0.22
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.45	0.48	-0.03
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.29	0.43	-0.14

Drawdowns

EFG vs. CIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFG drawdown since its inception was -58.40%, which is greater than CIL's maximum drawdown of -36.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFG and CIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	EFG	CIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.40%	-36.27%	-22.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.78%	-4.60%	-8.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.87%	-11.96%	-4.91%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.78%	-29.89%	-5.89%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.78%	-36.27%	+0.49%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.78%	-0.58%	-0.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.16%	-6.56%	-5.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.46%	1.07%	+2.39%

Volatility

EFG vs. CIL - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF (EFG) has a higher volatility of 5.88% compared to VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) at 0.00%. This indicates that EFG'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

	EFG	CIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.88%	0.00%	+5.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.36%	4.23%	+10.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.08%	8.19%	+8.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.11%	16.49%	+1.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.69%	17.17%	+0.52%

EFG vs. CIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFG has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than CIL's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

EFG vs. CIL - Dividend Comparison

EFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.34%, 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%
EFG iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF	2.34%	2.53%	1.64%	1.63%	1.27%	1.54%	0.85%	1.69%	1.98%	1.56%	2.20%	1.75%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EFG and CIL in my portfolio?

EFG and CIL have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EFG or CIL?

EFG has higher volatility (5.88%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFG dropped -58.40% vs CIL's -36.27%.

Which ETF is better, EFG or CIL?

On 10-year performance, CIL leads with 8.21% vs 7.96% for EFG. On fees, EFG is cheaper at 0.40% 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, EFG or CIL?

Over the 10-year period, CIL has performed better with a 8.21% return vs 7.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EFG or CIL?

EFG is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CIL.

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

EFG has the higher dividend yield at 2.34%, compared with 1.67% for CIL.

What is the main difference between EFG and CIL?

EFG tracks MSCI EAFE Growth Index, while CIL tracks Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Crestview. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for EFG and 0.45% for CIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 0.85), 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.