AOM vs. CGBL

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

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 15.19% vs 19.85% for CGBL. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AOM charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CGBL.

Performance

AOM vs. CGBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF (AOM) and Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AOM achieves a 5.49% return, which is significantly lower than CGBL's 8.10% return.

AOM

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: 2.21%
• YTD: 5.49%
• 6M: 6.11%
• 1Y: 15.19%
• 3Y*: 11.04%
• 5Y*: 5.00%
• 10Y*: 6.27%

CGBL

• 1D: 0.42%
• 1M: 3.74%
• YTD: 8.10%
• 6M: 9.35%
• 1Y: 19.85%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AOM vs. CGBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
AOM iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF	5.49%	13.28%	7.95%	8.28%
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	8.10%	15.33%	16.64%	9.80%

Correlation

The correlation between AOM and CGBL is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 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.

AOM vs. CGBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AOM	CGBL
Technology	27.9%	29.9%
Financial Services	16.1%	11.8%
Industrials	11.9%	16.6%
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	8.7%
Communication Services	8.1%	8.4%
Healthcare	8.0%	8.9%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	4.2%
Energy	4.3%	2.0%
Basic Materials	4.2%	7.2%
Utilities	2.7%	2.5%
Real Estate	2.4%	0.0%

Return for Risk

AOM vs. CGBL — Risk / Return Rank

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

AOM

AOM Risk / Return Rank: 69
AOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
AOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
AOM Omega Ratio Rank: 73
AOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
AOM Martin Ratio Rank: 69

CGBL

CGBL Risk / Return Rank: 61
CGBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
CGBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
CGBL Omega Ratio Rank: 62
CGBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
CGBL Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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.

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.

	AOM	CGBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.34	2.08	+0.26
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.38	3.00	+0.38
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.38	+0.06
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.99	2.60	+0.39
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	13.07	11.57	+1.50
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AOM vs. CGBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AOM Sharpe Ratio is 2.34, which is comparable to the CGBL Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AOM and CGBL, 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

	AOM	CGBL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.34	2.08	+0.26
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.79	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.70	1.75	-1.05

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	AOM	CGBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest 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	-6.85%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.96%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-19.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.70%	-1.29%	-1.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.17%	1.77%	-0.60%

Volatility

AOM vs. CGBL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF (AOM) is 2.15%, while Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) has a volatility of 3.12%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	AOM	CGBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.15%	3.12%	-0.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.21%	7.85%	-2.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.53%	9.59%	-3.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.14%	11.03%	-2.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.93%	11.03%	-3.10%

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 2.97%, 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	2.97%	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

Can I hold both AOM and CGBL in my portfolio?

AOM and CGBL have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AOM or CGBL?

CGBL has higher volatility (3.12%) compared to AOM (2.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AOM dropped -19.96% vs CGBL's -11.66%.

Which ETF is better, AOM or CGBL?

On 1-year performance, CGBL leads with 19.85% vs 15.19% for AOM. On fees, AOM is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, AOM has been the lower-risk option at 2.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AOM or CGBL?

Over the 1-year period, CGBL has performed better with a 19.85% return vs 15.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AOM or CGBL?

AOM is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CGBL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AOM or CGBL?

AOM has the higher dividend yield at 2.97%, compared with 1.84% for CGBL.

What is the main difference between AOM and CGBL?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for AOM and 0.33% for CGBL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AOM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.34 vs 2.08), 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.