CFO vs VYM
VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
Which is better, CFO or VYM?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
VYM has a lower expense ratio. VYM led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. CFO is less concentrated, with 3.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 26.1%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CFO | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $416M | $81.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.20% | 2.22% |
| Holdings | 502 | 613 |
| YTD Return | +7.52% | +11.35%Best |
| 1Y Return | +8.96% | +15.34%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.82% | +17.22%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.97% | +12.30%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.3%Best | 13.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -24.4%Best | -35.7% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $12,149 | $17,861Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 3.7%Best | 26.1% |
| Fund Family | Victory Capital Management Inc. | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Jul 1, 2014 | Nov 10, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 2, 2014 to Sep 18, 2026 (12.2 years).
CFO vs VYM growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 12.2 years both funds cover.
CFO vs VYM Performance
VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF (CFO) is an ETF from Victory Capital Management Inc. and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year CFO returned +8.96% while VYM returned +15.34%. Year to date, CFO is up 7.52% versus a gain of 11.35% for VYM.
Over three years, CFO compounded at +10.82% per year against +17.22% for VYM; over five years the annualized figures are +3.97% and +12.30% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, VYM has the edge at +8.81% annualized vs +7.84%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VYM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13.7% compared with 12.3% for CFO. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -24.4% for CFO and -35.7% for VYM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.87. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CFO charges 0.35% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $35 vs $4 annually, a gap of $31 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CFO currently yields 1.20% against 2.22% for VYM.
Holdings Overlap
52.8% of CFO's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 88.1% of VYM's money is in holdings CFO also owns.
Most of VYM is already inside CFO. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
234 positions in common, counted across the 501 positions we hold weights for in CFO and 557 in VYM, against full books of 502 and 613.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 297 positions for VYM that do not appear in our book for CFO (9.3% of the fund), and 262 for CFO that do not appear in VYM (46.2%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in CFO | Weight in VYM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.15% | 7.35% | 7.20% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 0.30% | 3.82% | 3.52% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 0.27% | 2.63% | 2.36% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.36% | 2.51% | 2.15% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 0.29% | 1.86% | 1.57% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 0.25% | 1.80% | 1.55% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 0.31% | 1.66% | 1.35% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 0.30% | 1.48% | 1.18% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 0.37% | 1.38% | 1.01% |
| UNHUnitedhealth Group Incorporated | 0.17% | 1.52% | 1.35% |
88.1% of VYM is already inside CFO.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CFO or VYM?
CFO has an expense ratio of 0.35% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option, by $31 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CFO or VYM?
Over the past year CFO returned +8.96% vs +15.34% for VYM, so VYM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), CFO annualized +7.84% vs +8.81% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CFO or VYM?
VYM has been the more volatile fund at 13.7% annualized versus 12.3% for CFO. Worst drawdown: CFO -24.4% vs VYM -35.7%.
Should I hold both CFO and VYM?
CFO and VYM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.87, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CFO and VYM?
88.1% of VYM's money is in holdings CFO also owns. 88.1% of VYM's is in holdings CFO also owns. They hold 234 positions in common, counted across the 501 positions we hold weights for in CFO and 557 in VYM.
Which pays a higher dividend, CFO or VYM?
CFO yields 1.20% while VYM yields 2.22%, so VYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VYM better than CFO?
VYM has a lower expense ratio. VYM led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. CFO is less concentrated, with 3.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 26.1%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.