AOA vs. INCM

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

AOA (iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF) and INCM (Franklin Income Focus ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. AOA is passively managed, while INCM is actively managed. Over the past year, AOA returned 24.17% vs 16.23% for INCM. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. AOA charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for INCM.

Performance

AOA vs. INCM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF (AOA) and Franklin Income Focus ETF (INCM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AOA achieves a 10.13% return, which is significantly higher than INCM's 7.07% return.

AOA

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: 3.39%
• YTD: 10.13%
• 6M: 10.89%
• 1Y: 24.17%
• 3Y*: 17.70%
• 5Y*: 9.19%
• 10Y*: 10.53%

INCM

• 1D: 0.58%
• 1M: 0.56%
• YTD: 7.07%
• 6M: 7.76%
• 1Y: 16.23%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AOA vs. INCM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
AOA iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF	10.13%	19.59%	13.55%	8.28%
INCM Franklin Income Focus ETF	7.07%	13.07%	6.80%	5.76%

Correlation

The correlation between AOA and INCM is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 9, 2023	0.69

The correlation between AOA and INCM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

AOA vs. INCM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AOA	INCM
Technology	27.4%	2.4%
Financial Services	16.1%	8.2%
Industrials	12.0%	1.9%
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	1.5%
Communication Services	8.3%	1.7%
Healthcare	8.0%	2.6%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	6.7%
Energy	4.3%	3.8%
Basic Materials	4.2%	1.9%
Utilities	2.7%	4.9%
Real Estate	2.4%	0.0%

Return for Risk

AOA vs. INCM — Risk / Return Rank

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

AOA

AOA Risk / Return Rank: 70
AOA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
AOA Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
AOA Omega Ratio Rank: 72
AOA Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
AOA Martin Ratio Rank: 72

INCM

INCM Risk / Return Rank: 91
INCM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
INCM Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
INCM Omega Ratio Rank: 91
INCM Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
INCM Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

AOA vs. INCM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF (AOA) and Franklin Income Focus ETF (INCM). 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.

	AOA	INCM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.28	3.09	-0.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.22	4.62	-1.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.59	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.96	5.11	-2.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.13	21.52	-8.39
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AOA vs. INCM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AOA Sharpe Ratio is 2.28, which is comparable to the INCM Sharpe Ratio of 3.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AOA and INCM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AOA	INCM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.28	3.09	-0.81
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.71	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.78	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.69	1.54	-0.85

Drawdowns

AOA vs. INCM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AOA drawdown since its inception was -28.38%, which is greater than INCM's maximum drawdown of -7.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AOA and INCM.

Drawdown Indicators

	AOA	INCM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.38%	-7.84%	-20.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.20%	-3.19%	-5.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.94%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.62%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-28.38%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.31%	-0.17%	-0.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.05%	-1.09%	-2.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.85%	0.76%	+1.09%

Volatility

AOA vs. INCM - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF (AOA) has a higher volatility of 3.16% compared to Franklin Income Focus ETF (INCM) at 1.60%. This indicates that AOA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than INCM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AOA	INCM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.16%	1.60%	+1.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.51%	3.86%	+4.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.63%	5.27%	+5.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.97%	7.23%	+5.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.54%	7.23%	+6.31%

AOA vs. INCM - Expense Ratio Comparison

AOA has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than INCM's 0.38% expense ratio.

Dividends

AOA vs. INCM - Dividend Comparison

AOA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.04%, less than INCM's 5.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AOA iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF	2.04%	2.18%	2.30%	2.22%	2.10%	1.67%	1.71%	2.50%	2.37%	5.09%	2.26%	2.15%
INCM Franklin Income Focus ETF	5.05%	4.96%	5.06%	3.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AOA and INCM in my portfolio?

AOA and INCM have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AOA or INCM?

AOA has higher volatility (3.16%) compared to INCM (1.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AOA dropped -28.38% vs INCM's -7.84%.

Which ETF is better, AOA or INCM?

On 1-year performance, AOA leads with 24.17% vs 16.23% for INCM. On fees, AOA is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, INCM has been the lower-risk option at 1.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AOA or INCM?

Over the 1-year period, AOA has performed better with a 24.17% return vs 16.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AOA or INCM?

AOA is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.38% for INCM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AOA or INCM?

INCM has the higher dividend yield at 5.05%, compared with 2.04% for AOA.

What is the main difference between AOA and INCM?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for AOA and 0.38% for INCM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

INCM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.09 vs 2.28), 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.