GFLW vs. CCOR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GFLW (VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF) and CCOR (Core Alternative ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. GFLW is passively managed, while CCOR is actively managed. Over the past year, GFLW returned 29.44% vs -5.97% for CCOR. At a correlation of -0.10, they often move in opposite directions. GFLW charges 0.39%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for CCOR.

Performance

GFLW vs. CCOR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF (GFLW) and Core Alternative ETF (CCOR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GFLW achieves a 16.55% return, which is significantly higher than CCOR's -3.71% return.

GFLW

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 10.36%
• YTD: 16.55%
• 6M: 15.42%
• 1Y: 29.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CCOR

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: -2.55%
• YTD: -3.71%
• 6M: -4.87%
• 1Y: -5.97%
• 3Y*: -2.34%
• 5Y*: -2.56%
• 10Y*: —

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

GFLW vs. CCOR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GFLW VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF	16.55%	18.40%	-6.12%
CCOR Core Alternative ETF	-3.71%	3.52%	-2.57%

Correlation

The correlation between GFLW and CCOR is -0.04, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 5, 2024	-0.10

Return for Risk

GFLW vs. CCOR — Risk / Return Rank

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

GFLW

GFLW Risk / Return Rank: 42
GFLW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
GFLW Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
GFLW Omega Ratio Rank: 41
GFLW Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
GFLW Martin Ratio Rank: 42

CCOR

CCOR Risk / Return Rank: 2
CCOR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
CCOR Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
CCOR Omega Ratio Rank: 2
CCOR Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
CCOR Martin Ratio Rank: 1

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.

GFLW vs. CCOR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF (GFLW) and Core Alternative ETF (CCOR). 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.

	GFLW	CCOR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	-0.87	+2.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	-1.15	+3.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	0.87	+0.40
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.98	-0.69	+2.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.72	-1.59	+8.31
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GFLW vs. CCOR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GFLW Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is higher than the CCOR Sharpe Ratio of -0.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GFLW and CCOR, 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

	GFLW	CCOR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.53	-0.87	+2.40
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.23	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.78	0.11	+0.66

Drawdowns

GFLW vs. CCOR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GFLW drawdown since its inception was -24.14%, which is greater than CCOR's maximum drawdown of -22.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GFLW and CCOR.

Drawdown Indicators

	GFLW	CCOR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.14%	-22.99%	-1.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.95%	-8.75%	-6.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.31%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-22.99%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.19%	-20.03%	+19.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.64%	-7.29%	+2.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.39%	3.77%	+0.62%

Volatility

GFLW vs. CCOR - Volatility Comparison

VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF (GFLW) has a higher volatility of 5.44% compared to Core Alternative ETF (CCOR) at 1.78%. This indicates that GFLW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CCOR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GFLW	CCOR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.44%	1.78%	+3.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.94%	4.96%	+9.98%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.30%	6.93%	+12.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.57%	11.10%	+13.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.57%	10.75%	+13.82%

GFLW vs. CCOR - Expense Ratio Comparison

GFLW has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than CCOR's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

GFLW vs. CCOR - Dividend Comparison

GFLW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%, less than CCOR's 1.11% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CCOR Core Alternative ETF	1.11%	1.07%	1.18%	1.21%	1.11%	1.02%	1.50%	0.73%	1.53%	0.89%
GFLW VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF	0.01%	0.02%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GFLW and CCOR in my portfolio?

GFLW and CCOR have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GFLW or CCOR?

GFLW has higher volatility (5.44%) compared to CCOR (1.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GFLW dropped -24.14% vs CCOR's -22.99%.

Which ETF is better, GFLW or CCOR?

On 1-year performance, GFLW leads with 29.44% vs -5.97% for CCOR. On fees, GFLW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, CCOR has been the lower-risk option at 1.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GFLW or CCOR?

Over the 1-year period, GFLW has performed better with a 29.44% return vs -5.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GFLW or CCOR?

GFLW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for CCOR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GFLW or CCOR?

CCOR has the higher dividend yield at 1.11%, compared with 0.01% for GFLW.

What is the main difference between GFLW and CCOR?

They also come from different issuers: Victory and Core Alternative Capital. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for GFLW and 1.09% for CCOR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GFLW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.53 vs -0.87), 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.