INTF vs. CIL

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

INTF (iShares MSCI Intl Multifactor ETF) and CIL (VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds - INTF tracks the MSCI World ex USA Diversified Multi-Factor while CIL tracks the Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, INTF returned 9.25%/yr vs 8.21%/yr for CIL. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. INTF charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CIL.

Performance

INTF vs. CIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Intl Multifactor ETF (INTF) 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, INTF achieves a 10.41% return, which is significantly higher than CIL's 5.44% return. Over the past 10 years, INTF has outperformed CIL with an annualized return of 9.25%, while CIL has yielded a comparatively lower 8.21% annualized return.

INTF

• 1D: 0.55%
• 1M: 1.96%
• YTD: 10.41%
• 6M: 14.13%
• 1Y: 25.27%
• 3Y*: 19.86%
• 5Y*: 9.90%
• 10Y*: 9.25%

CIL

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 5.44%
• 6M: 8.27%
• 1Y: 16.20%
• 3Y*: 15.59%
• 5Y*: 7.45%
• 10Y*: 8.21%

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

INTF vs. CIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
INTF iShares MSCI Intl Multifactor ETF	10.41%	35.50%	5.99%	18.25%	-12.31%	11.70%	2.83%	18.46%	-15.87%	28.46%
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 INTF and CIL is 0.69, 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	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.80
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2015	0.72

The correlation between INTF and CIL shifts across timeframes, from 0.69 (1 year) to 0.87 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

INTF vs. CIL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	INTF	CIL
Financial Services	25.2%	24.8%
Industrials	19.1%	18.4%
Consumer Cyclical	9.0%	8.2%
Technology	8.5%	6.4%
Healthcare	8.2%	7.7%
Basic Materials	6.6%	6.6%
Consumer Defensive	6.3%	8.8%
Energy	5.9%	4.6%
Utilities	4.7%	6.6%
Communication Services	3.9%	5.8%
Real Estate	2.7%	2.2%

Return for Risk

INTF vs. CIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

INTF

INTF Risk / Return Rank: 52
INTF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
INTF Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
INTF Omega Ratio Rank: 49
INTF Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
INTF Martin Ratio Rank: 59

CIL

CIL Risk / Return Rank: 73
CIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
CIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
CIL Omega Ratio Rank: 73
CIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
CIL Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

INTF vs. CIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Intl Multifactor ETF (INTF) 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.

	INTF	CIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.75	2.07	-0.32
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	2.96	-0.52
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.45	-0.13
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.63	4.32	-1.69
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.44	18.62	-8.18
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

INTF vs. CIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current INTF Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is comparable to the CIL Sharpe Ratio of 2.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INTF 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

	INTF	CIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.75	2.07	-0.32
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62	0.46	+0.16
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.54	0.48	+0.05
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.45	0.43	+0.02

Drawdowns

INTF vs. CIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INTF drawdown since its inception was -40.39%, which is greater than CIL's maximum drawdown of -36.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INTF and CIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	INTF	CIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.39%	-36.27%	-4.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.20%	-4.60%	-5.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.64%	-11.96%	-1.68%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.26%	-29.89%	+0.63%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-40.39%	-36.27%	-4.12%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.19%	-0.58%	+0.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.70%	-6.56%	-1.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.57%	1.07%	+1.50%

Volatility

INTF vs. CIL - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Intl Multifactor ETF (INTF) has a higher volatility of 4.65% compared to VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) at 0.00%. This indicates that INTF'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

	INTF	CIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.65%	0.00%	+4.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.96%	4.42%	+7.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.57%	8.26%	+6.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.16%	16.49%	-0.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.35%	17.18%	+0.17%

INTF vs. CIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

INTF has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than CIL's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

INTF vs. CIL - Dividend Comparison

INTF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.60%, 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%
INTF iShares MSCI Intl Multifactor ETF	2.60%	2.87%	3.53%	3.59%	2.81%	5.38%	2.06%	3.65%	2.62%	3.26%	1.66%	0.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both INTF and CIL in my portfolio?

INTF and CIL have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, INTF or CIL?

INTF has higher volatility (4.65%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, INTF dropped -40.39% vs CIL's -36.27%.

Which ETF is better, INTF or CIL?

On 10-year performance, INTF leads with 9.25% vs 8.21% for CIL. On fees, INTF is cheaper at 0.30% 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, INTF or CIL?

Over the 10-year period, INTF has performed better with a 9.25% return vs 8.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, INTF or CIL?

INTF is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CIL.

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

INTF has the higher dividend yield at 2.60%, compared with 1.67% for CIL.

What is the main difference between INTF and CIL?

INTF tracks MSCI World ex USA Diversified Multi-Factor, while CIL tracks Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Crestview. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for INTF and 0.45% for CIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs 1.75), 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.