GLOW vs. CFO

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

GLOW (VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF) and CFO (VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLOW is a Global Equities fund actively managed by VictoryShares, while CFO is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Long/Cash Volatility Weighted Index. GLOW is actively managed, while CFO is passively managed. Over the past year, GLOW returned 28.17% vs 15.27% for CFO. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GLOW charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CFO.

Performance

GLOW vs. CFO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF (GLOW) and VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF (CFO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLOW achieves a 11.87% return, which is significantly higher than CFO's 7.69% return.

GLOW

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 2.41%
• YTD: 11.87%
• 6M: 11.60%
• 1Y: 28.17%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CFO

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 1.46%
• YTD: 7.69%
• 6M: 6.67%
• 1Y: 15.27%
• 3Y*: 10.59%
• 5Y*: 4.37%
• 10Y*: 9.82%

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

GLOW vs. CFO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GLOW VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF	11.87%	21.29%	4.44%
CFO VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF	7.69%	8.60%	7.41%

Correlation

The correlation between GLOW and CFO is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 21, 2024	0.84

The correlation between GLOW and CFO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

GLOW vs. CFO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLOW	CFO
Technology	28.4%	17.1%
Financial Services	19.0%	17.8%
Healthcare	13.3%	9.6%
Communication Services	11.3%	3.6%
Industrials	8.5%	18.1%
Consumer Cyclical	6.2%	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	6.7%
Utilities	3.9%	8.5%
Basic Materials	2.1%	3.6%
Energy	1.6%	5.1%
Real Estate	0.9%	0.4%

Return for Risk

GLOW vs. CFO — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLOW

GLOW Risk / Return Rank: 69
GLOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
GLOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
GLOW Omega Ratio Rank: 69
GLOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
GLOW Martin Ratio Rank: 71

CFO

CFO Risk / Return Rank: 43
CFO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
CFO Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
CFO Omega Ratio Rank: 38
CFO Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
CFO Martin Ratio Rank: 49

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.

GLOW vs. CFO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF (GLOW) and VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF (CFO). 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.

	GLOW	CFO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.21	1.41	+0.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.06	2.06	+1.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.25	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.03	2.16	+0.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.85	7.98	+4.87

GLOW vs. CFO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLOW Sharpe Ratio is 2.21, which is higher than the CFO Sharpe Ratio of 1.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLOW and CFO, 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

GLOW vs. CFO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLOW drawdown since its inception was -15.58%, smaller than the maximum CFO drawdown of -24.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLOW and CFO.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLOW	CFO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.58%	-24.35%	+8.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.33%	-7.10%	-2.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-17.25%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.35%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-24.35%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.32%	-0.84%	+0.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.79%	-5.60%	+3.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.20%	1.92%	+0.28%

Volatility

GLOW vs. CFO - Volatility Comparison

VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF (GLOW) has a higher volatility of 4.81% compared to VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF (CFO) at 3.00%. This indicates that GLOW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CFO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLOW	CFO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.81%	3.00%	+1.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.46%	8.03%	+2.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.83%	10.93%	+1.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.29%	13.33%	+1.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.29%	13.28%	+2.01%

GLOW vs. CFO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLOW has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than CFO's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLOW vs. CFO - Dividend Comparison

GLOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.11%, less than CFO's 1.25% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CFO VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF	1.25%	1.32%	1.44%	1.72%	3.95%	1.06%	0.90%	1.44%	1.49%	1.18%	1.35%	1.31%
GLOW VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF	1.11%	1.33%	1.18%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLOW and CFO in my portfolio?

GLOW and CFO have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GLOW or CFO?

GLOW has higher volatility (4.81%) compared to CFO (3.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLOW dropped -15.58% vs CFO's -24.35%.

Which ETF is better, GLOW or CFO?

On 1-year performance, GLOW leads with 28.17% vs 15.27% for CFO. On fees, CFO is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, CFO has been the lower-risk option at 3.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLOW or CFO?

Over the 1-year period, GLOW has performed better with a 28.17% return vs 15.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLOW or CFO?

CFO is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for GLOW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GLOW or CFO?

CFO has the higher dividend yield at 1.25%, compared with 1.11% for GLOW.

What is the main difference between GLOW and CFO?

GLOW is categorized as Global Equities, while CFO is Large Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for GLOW and 0.35% for CFO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.21 vs 1.41), 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.