MFSV vs. CDC
MFSV (MFS Active Value ETF) and CDC (VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. MFSV is actively managed, while CDC is passively managed. Over the past year, MFSV returned 12.83% vs 18.16% for CDC. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MFSV charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.37%/yr for CDC.
Performance
MFSV vs. CDC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MFSV achieves a 4.53% return, which is significantly lower than CDC's 10.57% return.
MFSV
- 1D
- -0.29%
- 1M
- 0.36%
- YTD
- 4.53%
- 6M
- 5.79%
- 1Y
- 12.83%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CDC
- 1D
- -0.57%
- 1M
- -0.39%
- YTD
- 10.57%
- 6M
- 10.29%
- 1Y
- 18.16%
- 3Y*
- 11.97%
- 5Y*
- 5.08%
- 10Y*
- 10.03%
MFSV vs. CDC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
MFSV MFS Active Value ETF | 4.53% | 13.63% | -4.64% |
CDC VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF | 10.57% | 8.96% | -4.79% |
Correlation
The correlation between MFSV and CDC is 0.81, 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 | 0.81 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 6, 2024 | 0.85 |
The correlation between MFSV and CDC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
MFSV vs. CDC — Risk / Return Rank
MFSV
CDC
MFSV vs. CDC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MFS Active Value ETF (MFSV) and VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF (CDC). 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.
| MFSV | CDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.61 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.92 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | 1.32 | -0.10 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.03 | 3.22 | -1.19 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.96 | 11.37 | -4.41 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| MFSV | CDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.26 | 1.87 | -0.61 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.41 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.76 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.64 | 0.74 | -0.10 |
Drawdowns
MFSV vs. CDC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MFSV drawdown since its inception was -12.74%, smaller than the maximum CDC drawdown of -21.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFSV and CDC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MFSV | CDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -12.74% | -21.37% | +8.63% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.34% | -5.67% | -0.67% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -12.70% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -21.37% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -21.37% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.45% | -2.20% | +0.75% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.93% | -5.09% | +3.16% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.85% | 1.60% | +0.25% |
Volatility
MFSV vs. CDC - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for MFS Active Value ETF (MFSV) is 2.30%, while VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF (CDC) has a volatility of 2.66%. This indicates that MFSV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CDC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MFSV | CDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.30% | 2.66% | -0.36% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.59% | 6.84% | +0.75% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.21% | 9.77% | +0.44% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.73% | 12.54% | +1.19% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.73% | 13.21% | +0.52% |
MFSV vs. CDC - Expense Ratio Comparison
MFSV has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is higher than CDC's 0.37% expense ratio.
Dividends
MFSV vs. CDC - Dividend Comparison
MFSV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.51%, less than CDC's 3.18% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CDC VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF | 3.18% | 3.36% | 3.32% | 4.24% | 3.48% | 2.65% | 2.48% | 3.04% | 3.37% | 2.81% | 2.99% | 3.17% |
MFSV MFS Active Value ETF | 1.51% | 1.53% | 0.11% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MFSV and CDC have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CDC has higher volatility (2.66%) compared to MFSV (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MFSV dropped -12.74% vs CDC's -21.37%.
On 1-year performance, CDC leads with 18.16% vs 12.83% for MFSV. On fees, CDC is cheaper at 0.37% per year. On volatility, MFSV has been the lower-risk option at 2.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, CDC has performed better with a 18.16% return vs 12.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CDC is cheaper with a 0.37% expense ratio, compared with 0.44% for MFSV.
CDC has the higher dividend yield at 3.18%, compared with 1.51% for MFSV.
They also come from different issuers: MFS and Crestview. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for MFSV and 0.37% for CDC.
CDC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.87 vs 1.26), 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.
Find the right allocation for MFSV and CDC
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer