CFA
VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Wtd ETF
RMW
Adj. R2
0.928
Rel. Sharpe
0.988
Mkt beta
0.84
AUM
US$524M
MER
0.39%
Valuation
105
ETF comparison
Verified factor-similar pair
CFA vs TPLC
These US-listed equity ETFs share verified FF6 US factor exposure. The modeled volatility of their factor-return difference is at or below 3% annualized on both the same 36-month window and a longer factor-history check.
RMW
Current similarity score
91
Very close factor fit
The score is 100 for identical fitted exposures and 80 at the 3% modeled tracking-error limit. It includes market and non-market factors; it does not indicate which fund earned or is expected to earn more. How to read this score.
Quick Read
- CFA has the higher backtested relative Sharpe (0.988 vs 0.676).
- CFA has the lower published fee (0.39% vs 0.52%).
- TPLC is cheaper on dividend valuation (103 vs 105, where 100 is each fund's historical median).
- CFA has the stronger regression fit (adjusted R-squared 0.928 vs 0.908).
These are screening signals, not a complete review of portfolio construction, turnover, taxes, or trading quality.
TPLC
Timothy Plan US Large/Mid Cap Core ETF
RMW
Adj. R2
0.908
Rel. Sharpe
0.676
Mkt beta
0.88
AUM
US$351M
MER
0.52%
Valuation
103
Market beta uses the common 36-month window through 2026-08. Adjusted R² and relative Sharpe describe each fund's separately published full-history model.
Factor Exposure Match
Blue bars compare factor beta magnitude from the same 36 months shown above. Green bars compare absolute t-stat strength; dim bars indicate |t| below 1.96. Every factor enters the distance calculation regardless of its t-statistic.
SMB
diff -0.09
HML
diff +0.02
RMW
diff -0.02
CMA
diff -0.02
UMD
diff -0.07
What Happened Over the Same 36 Months
CFA adjusted total-return CAGR
13.71%
TPLC adjusted total-return CAGR
12.93%
CFA ahead by 0.78 percentage points/year over 2023-09 through 2026-08. This is the observed difference between annualized compounded returns from adjusted prices, not an expected return or a factor-model estimate.
Historical factor attribution
Signed contribution to CFA minus TPLC, percentage points/year, using fitted 36-month exposures and average factor returns over those same months:
Market factor
-0.70
Other factors, combined
+0.13
Total factor-implied difference
-0.57
This arithmetic-average factor attribution excludes the regression intercept and fund-specific return. It therefore need not equal the observed CAGR difference and is not a forecast.
Why This Pair Matches
Modeled factor tracking error · 36m
1.39%/yr
Modeled tracking error · 120m factor history
1.18%/yr
Mkt beta diff
0.05
Rel. Sharpe diff
0.311
Fitted exposures and factor covariance estimate the volatility, not the average or direction, of the funds' modeled return difference. The common regression window is 2023-09 through 2026-08. A short-window estimate and a longer factor-history check must both be at or below 3.000%; this is a screening limit, not a forecast. Holdings, turnover, taxes and trading costs require a separate review. The Sharpe figures elsewhere on this page come from each fund's published full-history model and do not enter similarity ranking. See the full methodology.
Monthly updates
Get the next US ETF leaders update
Get one monthly email when the US leaders table refreshes, plus methodology and comparison-page updates.
Monthly leaders refresh
Download-access updates
Low-volume research notes
One monthly email when the data drop lands. This browser will remember you after signup.