QLTI vs. CIL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QLTI (GMO International Quality ETF) and CIL (VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. QLTI is actively managed, while CIL is passively managed. Over the past year, QLTI returned 6.03% vs 16.95% for CIL. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QLTI charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CIL.

Performance

QLTI vs. CIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GMO International Quality ETF (QLTI) 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, QLTI achieves a -0.68% return, which is significantly lower than CIL's 5.44% return.

QLTI

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: 1.30%
• YTD: -0.68%
• 6M: -0.63%
• 1Y: 6.03%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CIL

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 5.44%
• 6M: 5.34%
• 1Y: 16.95%
• 3Y*: 15.96%
• 5Y*: 7.55%
• 10Y*: 8.21%

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

QLTI vs. CIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QLTI GMO International Quality ETF	-0.68%	17.12%	-7.94%
CIL VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF	5.44%	32.99%	-5.18%

Correlation

The correlation between QLTI and CIL is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 29, 2024	0.66

The correlation between QLTI and CIL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QLTI vs. CIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLTI

QLTI Risk / Return Rank: 14
QLTI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
QLTI Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
QLTI Omega Ratio Rank: 14
QLTI Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
QLTI Martin Ratio Rank: 15

CIL

CIL Risk / Return Rank: 83
CIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
CIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
CIL Omega Ratio Rank: 90
CIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
CIL Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

QLTI vs. CIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GMO International Quality ETF (QLTI) 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.

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.

	QLTI	CIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.39	2.32	-1.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.67	3.41	-2.74
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.54	-0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.44	3.85	-3.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.23	16.75	-15.52

QLTI vs. CIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLTI Sharpe Ratio is 0.39, which is lower than the CIL Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLTI 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.

Drawdowns

QLTI vs. CIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLTI drawdown since its inception was -14.82%, smaller than the maximum CIL drawdown of -36.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLTI and CIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLTI	CIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.82%	-36.27%	+21.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.72%	-4.60%	-9.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.96%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.89%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.27%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.11%	-0.58%	-5.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.82%	-6.53%	+2.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.90%	1.07%	+3.83%

Volatility

QLTI vs. CIL - Volatility Comparison

GMO International Quality ETF (QLTI) has a higher volatility of 4.63% compared to VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) at 0.00%. This indicates that QLTI'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

	QLTI	CIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.63%	0.00%	+4.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.82%	3.38%	+9.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.54%	7.66%	+7.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.73%	16.47%	+0.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.73%	17.08%	-0.35%

QLTI vs. CIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLTI has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than CIL's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

QLTI vs. CIL - Dividend Comparison

QLTI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.52%, less than CIL's 1.20% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CIL VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF	1.20%	2.70%	3.46%	2.91%	2.41%	3.04%	1.73%	2.69%	2.85%	2.17%	2.34%	0.43%
QLTI GMO International Quality ETF	0.52%	0.52%	0.19%	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 QLTI and CIL in my portfolio?

QLTI and CIL have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QLTI or CIL?

QLTI has higher volatility (4.63%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLTI dropped -14.82% vs CIL's -36.27%.

Which ETF is better, QLTI or CIL?

On 1-year performance, CIL leads with 16.95% vs 6.03% for QLTI. On fees, CIL is cheaper at 0.45% 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, QLTI or CIL?

Over the 1-year period, CIL has performed better with a 16.95% return vs 6.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLTI or CIL?

CIL is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QLTI.

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

CIL has the higher dividend yield at 1.20%, compared with 0.52% for QLTI.

What is the main difference between QLTI and CIL?

They also come from different issuers: GMO and Crestview. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QLTI and 0.45% for CIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 0.39), 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.