PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RFDI vs. CIL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RFDI vs. CIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Developed International ETF (RFDI) and VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFDI achieves a 8.72% return, which is significantly higher than CIL's 5.44% return. Over the past 10 years, RFDI has outperformed CIL with an annualized return of 9.44%, while CIL has yielded a comparatively lower 8.21% annualized return.


RFDI

1D
-1.41%
1M
0.53%
YTD
8.72%
6M
8.54%
1Y
25.31%
3Y*
19.62%
5Y*
8.21%
10Y*
9.44%

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)

RFDI vs. CIL - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RFDI
First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Developed International ETF
8.72%35.95%5.56%18.14%-23.57%17.36%9.16%20.47%-18.26%24.08%
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 RFDI and CIL is 0.65, 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

0.65

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.85

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.78

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.73

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 14, 2016

0.73

The correlation between RFDI and CIL shifts across timeframes, from 0.65 (1 year) to 0.85 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RFDI vs. CIL - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RFDI
CIL

Financial Services

27.8%
24.8%

Industrials

11.6%
18.4%

Energy

10.6%
4.6%

Consumer Cyclical

10.5%
8.2%

Healthcare

8.6%
7.7%

Technology

7.6%
6.4%

Consumer Defensive

7.0%
8.8%

Communication Services

5.1%
5.8%

Basic Materials

5.0%
6.6%

Utilities

4.4%
6.6%

Real Estate

1.9%
2.2%

Financial Services

RFDI
27.8%
CIL
24.8%

Industrials

RFDI
11.6%
CIL
18.4%

Energy

RFDI
10.6%
CIL
4.6%

Consumer Cyclical

RFDI
10.5%
CIL
8.2%

Healthcare

RFDI
8.6%
CIL
7.7%

Technology

RFDI
7.6%
CIL
6.4%

Consumer Defensive

RFDI
7.0%
CIL
8.8%

Communication Services

RFDI
5.1%
CIL
5.8%

Basic Materials

RFDI
5.0%
CIL
6.6%

Utilities

RFDI
4.4%
CIL
6.6%

Real Estate

RFDI
1.9%
CIL
2.2%

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

RFDI vs. CIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFDI
RFDI Risk / Return Rank: 5454
Overall Rank
RFDI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RFDI Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
RFDI Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
RFDI Calmar Ratio Rank: 5555
Calmar Ratio Rank
RFDI Martin Ratio Rank: 5656
Martin Ratio Rank

CIL
CIL Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
CIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIL Omega Ratio Rank: 9090
Omega Ratio Rank
CIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIL Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

RFDI vs. CIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Developed International ETF (RFDI) 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.


RFDICILDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.61

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.00

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.54

-0.23

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.49

3.85

-1.36

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.98

16.75

-7.77

RFDI vs. CIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFDI Sharpe Ratio is 1.71, which is comparable to the CIL Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFDI 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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

RFDI vs. CIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFDI drawdown since its inception was -39.40%, which is greater than CIL's maximum drawdown of -36.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFDI and CIL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RFDICILDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-39.40%

-36.27%

-3.13%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.20%

-4.60%

-5.60%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.44%

-11.96%

-1.48%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.87%

-29.89%

-5.98%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.40%

-36.27%

-3.13%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.83%

-0.58%

-1.25%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.20%

-6.53%

-2.67%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.83%

1.07%

+1.76%

Volatility

RFDI vs. CIL - Volatility Comparison

First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Developed International ETF (RFDI) has a higher volatility of 4.56% compared to VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) at 0.00%. This indicates that RFDI'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RFDICILDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.56%

0.00%

+4.56%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.49%

3.38%

+9.11%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.84%

7.66%

+7.18%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.82%

16.47%

+0.35%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.10%

17.08%

+0.02%

RFDI vs. CIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFDI has a 0.83% expense ratio, which is higher than CIL's 0.45% expense ratio.


Dividends

RFDI vs. CIL - Dividend Comparison

RFDI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.24%, more than CIL's 1.20% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
RFDI
First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Developed International ETF
3.24%3.45%5.21%2.43%5.00%3.22%1.34%2.72%2.59%1.63%1.85%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


RFDI and CIL have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

RFDI has higher volatility (4.56%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFDI dropped -39.40% vs CIL's -36.27%.

On 10-year performance, RFDI leads with 9.44% vs 8.21% for CIL. 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.

Over the 10-year period, RFDI has performed better with a 9.44% return vs 8.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CIL is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.83% for RFDI.

RFDI has the higher dividend yield at 3.24%, compared with 1.20% for CIL.

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Crestview. Their fees differ too: 0.83% for RFDI and 0.45% for CIL.

CIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 1.71), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RFDI and CIL

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