AOM vs. CGBL
AOM (iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF) and CGBL (Capital Group Core Balanced ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. AOM is passively managed, while CGBL is actively managed. Over the past year, AOM returned 11.77% vs 15.25% for CGBL. Their correlation of 0.87 means they have usually moved in the same direction. AOM charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CGBL.
Performance
AOM vs. CGBL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AOM achieves a 5.97% return, which is significantly lower than CGBL's 8.86% return.
AOM
- 1D
- 0.95%
- 1M
- 0.99%
- 6M
- 4.62%
- YTD
- 5.97%
- 1Y
- 11.77%
- 3Y*
- 10.81%
- 5Y*
- 4.63%
- 10Y*
- 6.08%
- ALL TIME*
- 7.11%
CGBL
- 1D
- 1.41%
- 1M
- 1.09%
- 6M
- 6.89%
- YTD
- 8.86%
- 1Y
- 15.25%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 18.25%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6.03M | $6.79M | $7.44M | |
| $48.09M | $63.43M | $78.46M |
AOM vs. CGBL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
AOM iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF | 5.97% | 13.28% | 7.95% | 8.72% |
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF | 8.86% | 15.33% | 16.64% | 10.10% |
Correlation
The correlation between AOM and CGBL is 0.90, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2023 | 0.87 |
The correlation between AOM and CGBL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.90 - 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
AOM vs. CGBL — Risk / Return Rank
AOM
CGBL
AOM vs. CGBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF (AOM) and Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL). 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| AOM | CGBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.20 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.30 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.31 | 1.27 | +0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.31 | 1.94 | +0.37 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.66 | 8.19 | +1.46 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
AOM vs. CGBL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AOM drawdown since its inception was -19.96%, which is greater than CGBL's maximum drawdown of -11.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AOM and CGBL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| AOM | CGBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.96% | -11.66% | -8.30% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.11% | -7.88% | +2.77% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.54% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.96% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -19.96% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.68% | -1.29% | -1.39% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.22% | 1.87% | -0.65% |
Volatility
AOM vs. CGBL - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF (AOM) is 2.38%, while Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) has a volatility of 3.18%. This indicates that AOM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| AOM | CGBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.38% | 3.18% | -0.80% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.98% | 8.82% | -2.84% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 7.13% | 10.53% | -3.40% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.26% | 11.12% | -2.86% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.95% | 11.12% | -3.17% |
AOM vs. CGBL - Expense Ratio Comparison
AOM has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than CGBL's 0.33% expense ratio.
Dividends
AOM vs. CGBL - Dividend Comparison
AOM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.05%, more than CGBL's 1.84% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AOM iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF | 3.05% | 2.98% | 3.10% | 2.79% | 2.27% | 1.56% | 2.02% | 2.66% | 2.53% | 3.31% | 2.14% | 1.98% |
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF | 1.84% | 1.98% | 1.92% | 0.48% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.90, AOM and CGBL move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
CGBL has higher volatility (3.18%) compared to AOM (2.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AOM dropped -19.96% vs CGBL's -11.66%.
On 1-year performance, CGBL leads with 15.25% vs 11.77% for AOM. On fees, AOM is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, AOM has been the lower-risk option at 2.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, CGBL has performed better with a 15.25% return vs 11.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
AOM is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CGBL.
AOM has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 1.84% for CGBL.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for AOM and 0.33% for CGBL.
AOM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.66 vs 1.46), 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 AOM and CGBL
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