PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FNDB vs. CDC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FNDB vs. CDC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF (FNDB) and VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF (CDC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNDB achieves a 14.93% return, which is significantly higher than CDC's 12.82% return. Over the past 10 years, FNDB has outperformed CDC with an annualized return of 14.31%, while CDC has yielded a comparatively lower 10.40% annualized return.


FNDB

1D
0.16%
1M
1.20%
YTD
14.93%
6M
14.34%
1Y
32.00%
3Y*
20.27%
5Y*
13.07%
10Y*
14.31%

CDC

1D
0.41%
1M
-0.21%
YTD
12.82%
6M
12.38%
1Y
20.49%
3Y*
12.60%
5Y*
6.42%
10Y*
10.40%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FNDB vs. CDC - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FNDB
Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF
14.93%16.23%16.25%18.42%-7.53%31.55%9.40%28.88%-8.20%16.94%
CDC
VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF
12.82%8.96%14.48%-4.99%-7.86%33.05%12.88%19.64%-5.97%15.77%

Correlation

The correlation between FNDB and CDC is 0.67, 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

0.67

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.73

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.80

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.84

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2014

0.85

The correlation between FNDB and CDC shifts across timeframes, from 0.67 (1 year) to 0.85 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FNDB vs. CDC - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FNDB
CDC

Technology

20.8%
5.0%

Financial Services

12.7%
24.0%

Healthcare

11.9%
6.9%

Industrials

10.0%
4.4%

Energy

9.3%
8.8%

Consumer Cyclical

9.2%
7.0%

Communication Services

8.9%
4.0%

Consumer Defensive

6.9%
15.1%

Basic Materials

3.7%
0.0%

Utilities

3.0%
23.9%

Real Estate

2.2%
0.0%

Technology

FNDB
20.8%
CDC
5.0%

Financial Services

FNDB
12.7%
CDC
24.0%

Healthcare

FNDB
11.9%
CDC
6.9%

Industrials

FNDB
10.0%
CDC
4.4%

Energy

FNDB
9.3%
CDC
8.8%

Consumer Cyclical

FNDB
9.2%
CDC
7.0%

Communication Services

FNDB
8.9%
CDC
4.0%

Consumer Defensive

FNDB
6.9%
CDC
15.1%

Basic Materials

FNDB
3.7%
CDC
0.0%

Utilities

FNDB
3.0%
CDC
23.9%

Real Estate

FNDB
2.2%
CDC
0.0%

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

FNDB vs. CDC — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNDB
FNDB Risk / Return Rank: 9090
Overall Rank
FNDB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FNDB Sortino Ratio Rank: 9191
Sortino Ratio Rank
FNDB Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
FNDB Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
FNDB Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
Martin Ratio Rank

CDC
CDC Risk / Return Rank: 6868
Overall Rank
CDC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CDC Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
CDC Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
CDC Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
CDC Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

FNDB vs. CDC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF (FNDB) and VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF (CDC). 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.


FNDBCDCDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.87

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.04

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.53

1.35

+0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.11

3.63

+1.48

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

19.46

12.77

+6.69

FNDB vs. CDC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNDB Sharpe Ratio is 2.94, which is higher than the CDC Sharpe Ratio of 2.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNDB and CDC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

FNDB vs. CDC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNDB drawdown since its inception was -38.17%, which is greater than CDC's maximum drawdown of -21.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNDB and CDC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FNDBCDCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-38.17%

-21.37%

-16.80%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.29%

-5.67%

-0.62%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.83%

-12.70%

-4.13%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.29%

-21.37%

+2.08%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.17%

-21.37%

-16.80%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.01%

-1.49%

+0.48%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.65%

-5.09%

+1.44%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.65%

1.61%

+0.04%

Volatility

FNDB vs. CDC - Volatility Comparison

Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF (FNDB) and VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF (CDC) have volatilities of 3.33% and 3.34%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FNDBCDCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.33%

3.34%

-0.01%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.96%

7.08%

+0.88%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.97%

9.96%

+1.01%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.35%

12.52%

+2.83%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.50%

13.23%

+4.27%

FNDB vs. CDC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNDB has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than CDC's 0.37% expense ratio.


Dividends

FNDB vs. CDC - Dividend Comparison

FNDB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, less than CDC's 3.17% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CDC
VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF
3.17%3.36%3.32%4.24%3.48%2.65%2.48%3.04%3.37%2.81%2.99%3.17%
FNDB
Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF
1.44%1.62%1.74%1.80%1.98%1.63%2.15%2.23%2.41%1.91%2.06%2.26%

Frequently Asked Questions


FNDB and CDC have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CDC has higher volatility (3.34%) compared to FNDB (3.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNDB dropped -38.17% vs CDC's -21.37%.

On 10-year performance, FNDB leads with 14.31% vs 10.40% for CDC. On fees, FNDB is cheaper at 0.25% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, FNDB has performed better with a 14.31% return vs 10.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FNDB is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.37% for CDC.

CDC has the higher dividend yield at 3.17%, compared with 1.44% for FNDB.

FNDB tracks RAFI Fundamental High Liquidity US All Index, while CDC tracks Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap High Dividend 100 Long/Cash Volatility Weighted Index. They also come from different issuers: Charles Schwab and Crestview. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for FNDB and 0.37% for CDC.

FNDB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.94 vs 2.07), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FNDB and CDC

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