PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
SFGV vs. BDVL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

SFGV vs. BDVL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Sequoia Global Value ETF (SFGV) and iShares Disciplined Volatility Equity Active ETF (BDVL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SFGV achieves a 11.37% return, which is significantly higher than BDVL's 4.71% return.


SFGV

1D
-0.38%
1M
3.27%
YTD
11.37%
6M
11.60%
1Y
25.44%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

BDVL

1D
-0.44%
1M
0.91%
YTD
4.71%
6M
5.43%
1Y
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

SFGV vs. BDVL - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between SFGV and BDVL is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2025

0.83

SFGV vs. BDVL - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
SFGV
BDVL

Consumer Cyclical

15.3%
8.5%

Industrials

13.7%
15.4%

Healthcare

12.7%
11.1%

Energy

11.4%
2.8%

Technology

11.4%
23.0%

Financial Services

10.5%
13.9%

Consumer Defensive

8.8%
6.3%

Basic Materials

6.0%
2.6%

Real Estate

5.9%
1.0%

Communication Services

3.4%
10.7%

Utilities

1.0%
4.8%

Consumer Cyclical

SFGV
15.3%
BDVL
8.5%

Industrials

SFGV
13.7%
BDVL
15.4%

Healthcare

SFGV
12.7%
BDVL
11.1%

Energy

SFGV
11.4%
BDVL
2.8%

Technology

SFGV
11.4%
BDVL
23.0%

Financial Services

SFGV
10.5%
BDVL
13.9%

Consumer Defensive

SFGV
8.8%
BDVL
6.3%

Basic Materials

SFGV
6.0%
BDVL
2.6%

Real Estate

SFGV
5.9%
BDVL
1.0%

Communication Services

SFGV
3.4%
BDVL
10.7%

Utilities

SFGV
1.0%
BDVL
4.8%

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

SFGV vs. BDVL — Risk / Return Rank

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

SFGV
SFGV Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
SFGV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SFGV Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
SFGV Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
SFGV Calmar Ratio Rank: 6262
Calmar Ratio Rank
SFGV Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
Martin Ratio Rank

BDVL
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.

SFGV vs. BDVL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sequoia Global Value ETF (SFGV) and iShares Disciplined Volatility Equity Active ETF (BDVL). 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.


SFGVBDVLDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.21

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

3.17

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.39

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.06

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

11.43

SFGV vs. BDVL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


SFGVBDVLDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.21

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.33

1.01

+0.31

Drawdowns

SFGV vs. BDVL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SFGV drawdown since its inception was -14.51%, which is greater than BDVL's maximum drawdown of -7.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SFGV and BDVL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


SFGVBDVLDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-14.51%

-7.71%

-6.80%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.36%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.38%

-0.95%

+0.57%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.89%

-1.19%

-0.70%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.23%

Volatility

SFGV vs. BDVL - Volatility Comparison


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


SFGVBDVLDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.95%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.62%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.58%

9.49%

+2.09%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.26%

9.49%

+3.77%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.26%

9.49%

+3.77%

SFGV vs. BDVL - Expense Ratio Comparison

SFGV has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is lower than BDVL's 0.40% expense ratio.


Dividends

SFGV vs. BDVL - Dividend Comparison

SFGV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.25%, less than BDVL's 2.66% yield.


PositionTTM20252024
BDVL
iShares Disciplined Volatility Equity Active ETF
2.66%2.79%0.00%
SFGV
Sequoia Global Value ETF
2.25%2.52%2.23%

Frequently Asked Questions


SFGV and BDVL have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, SFGV is cheaper at 0.33% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

SFGV is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for BDVL.

BDVL has the higher dividend yield at 2.66%, compared with 2.25% for SFGV.

They also come from different issuers: Sequoia and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for SFGV and 0.40% for BDVL.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for SFGV and BDVL

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