LGLV vs. CFA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LGLV (SPDR SSGA US Large Cap Low Volatility Index ETF) and CFA (VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LGLV is a Volatility Hedged Equity fund tracking the SSGA US Large Cap Low Volatility (TR), while CFA is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Volatility Weighted Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, LGLV returned 11.00%/yr vs 11.41%/yr for CFA. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LGLV charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CFA.

Performance

LGLV vs. CFA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR SSGA US Large Cap Low Volatility Index ETF (LGLV) and VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LGLV achieves a 0.83% return, which is significantly lower than CFA's 6.66% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with LGLV having a 11.00% annualized return and CFA not far ahead at 11.41%.

LGLV

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: -1.79%
• YTD: 0.83%
• 6M: 1.07%
• 1Y: 2.87%
• 3Y*: 11.07%
• 5Y*: 7.70%
• 10Y*: 11.00%

CFA

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: 1.81%
• YTD: 6.66%
• 6M: 6.96%
• 1Y: 13.49%
• 3Y*: 13.78%
• 5Y*: 7.77%
• 10Y*: 11.41%

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

LGLV vs. CFA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
LGLV SPDR SSGA US Large Cap Low Volatility Index ETF	0.83%	8.37%	16.22%	9.19%	-8.17%	27.95%	7.42%	30.83%	0.32%	17.84%
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF	6.66%	8.63%	15.34%	11.85%	-11.39%	26.09%	11.98%	30.15%	-8.62%	22.47%

Correlation

The correlation between LGLV and CFA is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.86
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 3, 2014	0.83

The correlation between LGLV and CFA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

LGLV vs. CFA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LGLV	CFA
Industrials	18.4%	18.4%
Real Estate	17.4%	0.5%
Utilities	11.8%	9.0%
Financial Services	9.9%	18.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	9.8%
Technology	8.8%	14.9%
Healthcare	7.0%	9.5%
Consumer Defensive	5.9%	6.8%
Communication Services	4.2%	3.6%
Energy	3.7%	5.5%
Basic Materials	3.5%	3.6%

Return for Risk

LGLV vs. CFA — Risk / Return Rank

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

LGLV

LGLV Risk / Return Rank: 13
LGLV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
LGLV Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
LGLV Omega Ratio Rank: 12
LGLV Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
LGLV Martin Ratio Rank: 14

CFA

CFA Risk / Return Rank: 37
CFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
CFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
CFA Omega Ratio Rank: 33
CFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
CFA Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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.

LGLV vs. CFA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR SSGA US Large Cap Low Volatility Index ETF (LGLV) and VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA). 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.

	LGLV	CFA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.31	1.27	-0.96
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.51	1.89	-1.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.22	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.42	1.90	-1.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.08	7.03	-5.95
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LGLV vs. CFA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LGLV Sharpe Ratio is 0.31, which is lower than the CFA Sharpe Ratio of 1.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGLV and CFA, 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

	LGLV	CFA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31	1.27	-0.96
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.60	0.52	+0.08
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.69	0.66	+0.02
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.76	0.62	+0.14

Drawdowns

LGLV vs. CFA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGLV drawdown since its inception was -36.64%, roughly equal to the maximum CFA drawdown of -37.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGLV and CFA.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGLV	CFA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.64%	-37.74%	+1.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.86%	-7.13%	+0.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.17%	-17.28%	+7.11%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.49%	-20.88%	+3.39%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.64%	-37.74%	+1.10%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.60%	-0.30%	-6.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.21%	-4.17%	+0.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.67%	1.92%	+0.75%

Volatility

LGLV vs. CFA - Volatility Comparison

SPDR SSGA US Large Cap Low Volatility Index ETF (LGLV) and VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) have volatilities of 2.42% and 2.40%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LGLV	CFA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.42%	2.40%	+0.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.52%	7.82%	-1.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.20%	10.70%	-1.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.91%	15.06%	-2.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.06%	17.21%	-1.15%

LGLV vs. CFA - Expense Ratio Comparison

LGLV has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than CFA's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

LGLV vs. CFA - Dividend Comparison

LGLV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.04%, more than CFA's 1.24% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF	1.24%	1.29%	1.32%	1.42%	1.59%	1.04%	1.21%	1.35%	1.50%	1.15%	1.37%	1.31%
LGLV SPDR SSGA US Large Cap Low Volatility Index ETF	2.04%	1.94%	1.93%	2.03%	1.95%	1.65%	1.98%	1.89%	2.09%	4.39%	2.54%	2.97%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LGLV and CFA in my portfolio?

LGLV and CFA have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LGLV or CFA?

LGLV has higher volatility (2.42%) compared to CFA (2.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LGLV dropped -36.64% vs CFA's -37.74%.

Which ETF is better, LGLV or CFA?

On 10-year performance, CFA leads with 11.41% vs 11.00% for LGLV. On fees, LGLV is cheaper at 0.12% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LGLV or CFA?

Over the 10-year period, CFA has performed better with a 11.41% return vs 11.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LGLV or CFA?

LGLV is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CFA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LGLV or CFA?

LGLV has the higher dividend yield at 2.04%, compared with 1.24% for CFA.

What is the main difference between LGLV and CFA?

LGLV is categorized as Volatility Hedged Equity, while CFA is Large Cap Blend Equities. LGLV tracks SSGA US Large Cap Low Volatility (TR), while CFA tracks Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Volatility Weighted Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and VictoryShares. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for LGLV and 0.35% for CFA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CFA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.27 vs 0.31), 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.