FNDF vs. CIL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FNDF (Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF) and CIL (VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds - FNDF tracks the Russell Fundamental Developed ex-U.S. Large Company Index while CIL tracks the Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FNDF returned 11.93%/yr vs 8.21%/yr for CIL. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FNDF charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CIL.

Performance

FNDF vs. CIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF (FNDF) 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, FNDF achieves a 21.21% return, which is significantly higher than CIL's 5.44% return. Over the past 10 years, FNDF has outperformed CIL with an annualized return of 11.93%, while CIL has yielded a comparatively lower 8.21% annualized return.

FNDF

• 1D: -0.67%
• 1M: 6.97%
• YTD: 21.21%
• 6M: 24.72%
• 1Y: 44.71%
• 3Y*: 24.10%
• 5Y*: 13.35%
• 10Y*: 11.93%

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)

FNDF vs. CIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FNDF Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF	21.21%	40.99%	2.29%	20.22%	-7.78%	14.97%	3.61%	18.46%	-14.21%	23.98%
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 FNDF and CIL is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.79
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2015	0.72

The correlation between FNDF and CIL shifts across timeframes, from 0.66 (1 year) to 0.87 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FNDF vs. CIL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNDF	CIL
Financial Services	16.7%	24.8%
Industrials	15.9%	18.4%
Energy	12.3%	4.6%
Basic Materials	11.3%	6.6%
Technology	11.1%	6.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.7%	8.2%
Consumer Defensive	6.9%	8.8%
Healthcare	5.5%	7.7%
Communication Services	4.9%	5.8%
Utilities	3.8%	6.6%
Real Estate	0.9%	2.2%

Return for Risk

FNDF vs. CIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNDF

FNDF Risk / Return Rank: 84
FNDF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
FNDF Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
FNDF Omega Ratio Rank: 85
FNDF Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
FNDF Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

FNDF vs. CIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF (FNDF) 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.

	FNDF	CIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.99	2.24	+0.75
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.89	3.22	+0.67
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	1.49	+0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.24	3.95	+0.29
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	16.19	16.75	-0.56
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FNDF vs. CIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNDF Sharpe Ratio is 2.99, which is higher than the CIL Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNDF 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

	FNDF	CIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.99	2.24	+0.75
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83	0.46	+0.37
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.68	0.48	+0.20
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	0.43	+0.10

Drawdowns

FNDF vs. CIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNDF drawdown since its inception was -40.14%, which is greater than CIL's maximum drawdown of -36.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNDF and CIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNDF	CIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.14%	-36.27%	-3.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.60%	-4.60%	-6.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.89%	-11.96%	-1.93%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.56%	-29.89%	+4.33%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-40.14%	-36.27%	-3.87%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.67%	-0.58%	-0.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.64%	-6.56%	-1.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.77%	1.07%	+1.70%

Volatility

FNDF vs. CIL - Volatility Comparison

Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF (FNDF) has a higher volatility of 5.26% compared to VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) at 0.00%. This indicates that FNDF'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

	FNDF	CIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.26%	0.00%	+5.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.53%	4.23%	+8.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.06%	8.19%	+6.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.18%	16.49%	-0.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.67%	17.17%	+0.50%

FNDF vs. CIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNDF has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than CIL's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNDF vs. CIL - Dividend Comparison

FNDF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.84%, 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%
FNDF Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF	2.84%	3.44%	4.01%	3.41%	3.10%	3.54%	2.17%	3.20%	3.47%	2.32%	2.42%	2.08%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNDF and CIL in my portfolio?

FNDF and CIL have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FNDF or CIL?

FNDF has higher volatility (5.26%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNDF dropped -40.14% vs CIL's -36.27%.

Which ETF is better, FNDF or CIL?

On 10-year performance, FNDF leads with 11.93% vs 8.21% for CIL. On fees, FNDF is cheaper at 0.25% 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, FNDF or CIL?

Over the 10-year period, FNDF has performed better with a 11.93% return vs 8.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNDF or CIL?

FNDF is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CIL.

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

FNDF has the higher dividend yield at 2.84%, compared with 1.67% for CIL.

What is the main difference between FNDF and CIL?

FNDF tracks Russell Fundamental Developed ex-U.S. Large Company Index, while CIL tracks Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index. They also come from different issuers: Charles Schwab and Crestview. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for FNDF and 0.45% for CIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNDF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.99 vs 2.24), 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.