FDTS vs. CGV

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FDTS (First Trust Developed Markets ex-US Small Cap AlphaDEX Fund) and CGV (Conductor Global Equity Value ETF) are both Foreign Small & Mid Cap Equities funds. FDTS is passively managed, while CGV is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FDTS returned 23.84%/yr vs 11.34%/yr for CGV. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FDTS charges 0.80%/yr vs 1.25%/yr for CGV.

Performance

FDTS vs. CGV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Developed Markets ex-US Small Cap AlphaDEX Fund (FDTS) and Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDTS achieves a 12.44% return, which is significantly higher than CGV's 7.53% return.

FDTS

• 1D: -3.77%
• 1M: -6.39%
• YTD: 12.44%
• 6M: 12.40%
• 1Y: 36.22%
• 3Y*: 23.84%
• 5Y*: 9.93%
• 10Y*: 10.51%

CGV

• 1D: -1.57%
• 1M: -3.07%
• YTD: 7.53%
• 6M: 6.77%
• 1Y: 21.28%
• 3Y*: 11.34%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FDTS vs. CGV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FDTS First Trust Developed Markets ex-US Small Cap AlphaDEX Fund	12.44%	51.17%	2.44%	10.96%	-1.00%
CGV Conductor Global Equity Value ETF	7.53%	23.11%	-3.34%	5.72%	3.64%

Correlation

The correlation between FDTS and CGV is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.84
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2022	0.77

The correlation between FDTS and CGV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDTS vs. CGV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDTS	CGV
Industrials	22.2%	14.3%
Consumer Cyclical	18.9%	10.3%
Technology	14.1%	11.7%
Financial Services	11.9%	5.2%
Basic Materials	11.3%	21.2%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	12.6%
Real Estate	4.3%	1.2%
Energy	4.0%	11.7%
Communication Services	3.2%	3.6%
Healthcare	2.8%	4.2%
Utilities	2.7%	4.0%

Return for Risk

FDTS vs. CGV — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDTS

FDTS Risk / Return Rank: 60
FDTS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
FDTS Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
FDTS Omega Ratio Rank: 62
FDTS Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
FDTS Martin Ratio Rank: 57

CGV

CGV Risk / Return Rank: 42
CGV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
CGV Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
CGV Omega Ratio Rank: 43
CGV Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
CGV Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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.

FDTS vs. CGV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Developed Markets ex-US Small Cap AlphaDEX Fund (FDTS) and Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV). 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.

	FDTS	CGV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.95	1.44	+0.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	1.97	+0.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.26	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.89	1.76	+1.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.60	5.96	+3.64

FDTS vs. CGV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDTS Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is higher than the CGV Sharpe Ratio of 1.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDTS and CGV, 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

FDTS vs. CGV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDTS drawdown since its inception was -51.26%, which is greater than CGV's maximum drawdown of -16.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDTS and CGV.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDTS	CGV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.26%	-16.64%	-34.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.61%	-12.13%	-0.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.19%	-16.64%	+3.45%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.11%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-51.26%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.86%	-7.59%	-2.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.64%	-3.67%	-6.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.78%	3.58%	+0.20%

Volatility

FDTS vs. CGV - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Developed Markets ex-US Small Cap AlphaDEX Fund (FDTS) has a higher volatility of 9.16% compared to Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) at 5.95%. This indicates that FDTS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDTS	CGV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.16%	5.95%	+3.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.13%	12.72%	+3.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.63%	14.84%	+3.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.47%	13.68%	+15.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.85%	13.68%	+11.17%

FDTS vs. CGV - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDTS has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is lower than CGV's 1.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDTS vs. CGV - Dividend Comparison

FDTS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.67%, less than CGV's 5.10% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGV Conductor Global Equity Value ETF	5.10%	4.58%	2.87%	4.56%	0.71%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FDTS First Trust Developed Markets ex-US Small Cap AlphaDEX Fund	2.67%	2.94%	3.94%	2.90%	3.71%	3.01%	2.02%	2.30%	1.96%	2.08%	1.78%	1.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDTS and CGV in my portfolio?

FDTS and CGV have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDTS or CGV?

FDTS has higher volatility (9.16%) compared to CGV (5.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDTS dropped -51.26% vs CGV's -16.64%.

Which ETF is better, FDTS or CGV?

On 3-year performance, FDTS leads with 23.84% vs 11.34% for CGV. On fees, FDTS is cheaper at 0.80% per year. On volatility, CGV has been the lower-risk option at 5.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDTS or CGV?

Over the 3-year period, FDTS has performed better with a 23.84% return vs 11.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDTS or CGV?

FDTS is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for CGV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FDTS or CGV?

CGV has the higher dividend yield at 5.10%, compared with 2.67% for FDTS.

What is the main difference between FDTS and CGV?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Conductor Fund. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for FDTS and 1.25% for CGV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FDTS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.95 vs 1.44), 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.