FNDC vs. CGV

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FNDC (Schwab Fundamental International Small Co. Index ETF) and CGV (Conductor Global Equity Value ETF) are both Foreign Small & Mid Cap Equities funds. FNDC is passively managed, while CGV is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FNDC returned 17.82%/yr vs 11.34%/yr for CGV. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FNDC charges 0.39%/yr vs 1.25%/yr for CGV.

Performance

FNDC vs. CGV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Schwab Fundamental International Small Co. Index ETF (FNDC) 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, FNDC achieves a 8.64% return, which is significantly higher than CGV's 7.53% return.

FNDC

• 1D: -2.22%
• 1M: -2.87%
• YTD: 8.64%
• 6M: 8.23%
• 1Y: 22.78%
• 3Y*: 17.82%
• 5Y*: 7.13%
• 10Y*: 9.07%

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)

FNDC vs. CGV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FNDC Schwab Fundamental International Small Co. Index ETF	8.64%	35.65%	1.38%	14.92%	-0.98%
CGV Conductor Global Equity Value ETF	7.53%	23.11%	-3.34%	5.72%	3.64%

Correlation

The correlation between FNDC and CGV is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2022	0.84

The correlation between FNDC and CGV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNDC vs. CGV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNDC	CGV
Industrials	25.3%	14.3%
Consumer Cyclical	12.9%	10.3%
Financial Services	11.4%	5.2%
Basic Materials	11.3%	21.2%
Technology	10.1%	11.7%
Real Estate	6.6%	1.2%
Consumer Defensive	6.1%	12.6%
Healthcare	4.8%	4.2%
Communication Services	4.7%	3.6%
Energy	4.1%	11.7%
Utilities	2.6%	4.0%

Return for Risk

FNDC vs. CGV — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNDC

FNDC Risk / Return Rank: 45
FNDC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
FNDC Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
FNDC Omega Ratio Rank: 46
FNDC Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
FNDC Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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.

FNDC vs. CGV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Schwab Fundamental International Small Co. Index ETF (FNDC) 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.

	FNDC	CGV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	1.44	+0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.18	1.97	+0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.26	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.04	1.76	+0.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.47	5.96	+1.51

FNDC vs. CGV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNDC Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is comparable to the CGV Sharpe Ratio of 1.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNDC 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

FNDC vs. CGV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNDC drawdown since its inception was -43.22%, which is greater than CGV's maximum drawdown of -16.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNDC and CGV.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNDC	CGV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.22%	-16.64%	-26.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.20%	-12.13%	+0.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.98%	-16.64%	+3.66%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.13%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-43.22%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.48%	-7.59%	+3.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.42%	-3.67%	-4.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.06%	3.58%	-0.52%

Volatility

FNDC vs. CGV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Schwab Fundamental International Small Co. Index ETF (FNDC) is 5.54%, while Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) has a volatility of 5.95%. This indicates that FNDC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNDC	CGV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.54%	5.95%	-0.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.73%	12.72%	+0.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.96%	14.84%	+0.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.09%	13.68%	+2.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.69%	13.68%	+3.01%

FNDC vs. CGV - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNDC has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than CGV's 1.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNDC vs. CGV - Dividend Comparison

FNDC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.55%, 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%
FNDC Schwab Fundamental International Small Co. Index ETF	3.55%	3.86%	3.59%	2.86%	1.98%	2.58%	1.77%	2.71%	2.68%	1.94%	1.95%	1.30%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNDC and CGV in my portfolio?

FNDC and CGV have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FNDC or CGV?

CGV has higher volatility (5.95%) compared to FNDC (5.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNDC dropped -43.22% vs CGV's -16.64%.

Which ETF is better, FNDC or CGV?

On 3-year performance, FNDC leads with 17.82% vs 11.34% for CGV. On fees, FNDC is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FNDC has been the lower-risk option at 5.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNDC or CGV?

Over the 3-year period, FNDC has performed better with a 17.82% return vs 11.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNDC or CGV?

FNDC is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for CGV.

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

CGV has the higher dividend yield at 5.10%, compared with 3.55% for FNDC.

What is the main difference between FNDC and CGV?

They also come from different issuers: Charles Schwab and Conductor Fund. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for FNDC and 1.25% for CGV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNDC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.53 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.