TXUG vs. CIL
TXUG (Thornburg International Growth ETF) and CIL (VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. TXUG is actively managed, while CIL is passively managed. Over the past year, TXUG returned 5.65% vs 17.37% for CIL. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TXUG charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CIL.
Performance
TXUG vs. CIL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TXUG achieves a 9.55% return, which is significantly higher than CIL's 5.44% return.
TXUG
- 1D
- -0.64%
- 1M
- 4.08%
- YTD
- 9.55%
- 6M
- 9.59%
- 1Y
- 5.65%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CIL
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.00%
- YTD
- 5.44%
- 6M
- 7.94%
- 1Y
- 17.37%
- 3Y*
- 15.59%
- 5Y*
- 7.45%
- 10Y*
- 8.21%
TXUG vs. CIL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
TXUG Thornburg International Growth ETF | 9.55% | -1.72% |
CIL VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF | 5.44% | 28.52% |
Correlation
The correlation between TXUG and CIL is 0.55, 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 | 0.55 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2025 | 0.61 |
The correlation between TXUG and CIL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.61 - 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
TXUG vs. CIL — Risk / Return Rank
TXUG
CIL
TXUG vs. CIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Thornburg International Growth ETF (TXUG) 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.
| TXUG | CIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.90 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.62 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.07 | 1.49 | -0.42 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.44 | 3.95 | -3.51 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.21 | 16.75 | -15.54 |
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
| TXUG | CIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.34 | 2.24 | -1.90 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.46 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.48 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.29 | 0.43 | -0.15 |
Drawdowns
TXUG vs. CIL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TXUG drawdown since its inception was -18.58%, smaller than the maximum CIL drawdown of -36.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TXUG and CIL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TXUG | CIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -18.58% | -36.27% | +17.69% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.93% | -4.60% | -8.33% |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.64% | -0.58% | -0.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.21% | -6.56% | +2.35% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.67% | 1.07% | +3.60% |
Volatility
TXUG vs. CIL - Volatility Comparison
Thornburg International Growth ETF (TXUG) has a higher volatility of 5.32% compared to VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) at 0.00%. This indicates that TXUG'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
| TXUG | CIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.32% | 0.00% | +5.32% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.29% | 4.23% | +10.06% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.93% | 8.19% | +8.74% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.61% | 16.49% | +3.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.61% | 17.17% | +2.44% |
TXUG vs. CIL - Expense Ratio Comparison
TXUG has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than CIL's 0.45% expense ratio.
Dividends
TXUG vs. CIL - Dividend Comparison
TXUG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.47%, less than CIL's 1.67% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CIL VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF | 1.67% | 2.70% | 3.46% | 2.91% | 2.41% | 3.04% | 1.73% | 2.69% | 2.85% | 2.17% | 2.34% | 0.43% |
TXUG Thornburg International Growth ETF | 0.47% | 0.51% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TXUG and CIL have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
TXUG has higher volatility (5.32%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TXUG dropped -18.58% vs CIL's -36.27%.
On 1-year performance, CIL leads with 17.37% vs 5.65% for TXUG. 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 1-year period, CIL has performed better with a 17.37% return vs 5.65%. 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 0.70% for TXUG.
CIL has the higher dividend yield at 1.67%, compared with 0.47% for TXUG.
They also come from different issuers: Thornburg and Crestview. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for TXUG and 0.45% for CIL.
CIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 0.34), 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 TXUG 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