AOM vs. TBFG

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

AOM (iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF) and TBFG (The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AOM is a Diversified Portfolio fund tracking the S&P Target Risk Moderate, while TBFG is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by The Brinsmere Funds. AOM is passively managed, while TBFG is actively managed. Over the past year, AOM returned 12.57% vs 20.72% for TBFG. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AOM charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.42%/yr for TBFG.

Performance

AOM vs. TBFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF (AOM) and The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AOM achieves a 4.79% return, which is significantly lower than TBFG's 9.09% return.

AOM

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: -0.06%
• YTD: 4.79%
• 6M: 4.29%
• 1Y: 12.57%
• 3Y*: 10.68%
• 5Y*: 4.70%
• 10Y*: 6.41%

TBFG

• 1D: 0.55%
• 1M: -0.66%
• YTD: 9.09%
• 6M: 8.40%
• 1Y: 20.72%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AOM vs. TBFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
AOM iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF	4.79%	13.28%	8.23%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	9.09%	14.56%	10.20%

Correlation

The correlation between AOM and TBFG is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2024	0.90

The correlation between AOM and TBFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

AOM vs. TBFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

AOM

AOM Risk / Return Rank: 65
AOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
AOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
AOM Omega Ratio Rank: 66
AOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
AOM Martin Ratio Rank: 67

TBFG

TBFG Risk / Return Rank: 69
TBFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
TBFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
TBFG Omega Ratio Rank: 71
TBFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
TBFG Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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. TBFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF (AOM) and The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG). 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	TBFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.83	1.98	-0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.64	2.74	-0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.37	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.47	2.73	-0.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.61	11.46	-0.85

AOM vs. TBFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AOM Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is comparable to the TBFG Sharpe Ratio of 1.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AOM and TBFG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

AOM vs. TBFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AOM drawdown since its inception was -19.96%, which is greater than TBFG's maximum drawdown of -13.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AOM and TBFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	AOM	TBFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.96%	-13.43%	-6.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.11%	-7.63%	+2.52%
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	-0.66%	-1.50%	+0.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.69%	-1.62%	-1.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.19%	1.81%	-0.62%

Volatility

AOM vs. TBFG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF (AOM) is 2.71%, while The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) has a volatility of 4.55%. This indicates that AOM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TBFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AOM	TBFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.71%	4.55%	-1.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.70%	9.00%	-3.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.89%	10.50%	-3.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.21%	11.17%	-2.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.94%	11.17%	-3.23%

AOM vs. TBFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

AOM has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than TBFG's 0.42% expense ratio.

Dividends

AOM vs. TBFG - Dividend Comparison

AOM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.99%, more than TBFG's 2.41% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AOM iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF	2.99%	2.98%	3.10%	2.79%	2.27%	1.56%	2.02%	2.66%	2.53%	3.31%	2.14%	1.98%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	2.41%	2.65%	2.43%	0.00%	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 TBFG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, AOM and TBFG 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.

Which is riskier, AOM or TBFG?

TBFG has higher volatility (4.55%) compared to AOM (2.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AOM dropped -19.96% vs TBFG's -13.43%.

Which ETF is better, AOM or TBFG?

On 1-year performance, TBFG leads with 20.72% vs 12.57% for AOM. On fees, AOM is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, AOM has been the lower-risk option at 2.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AOM or TBFG?

Over the 1-year period, TBFG has performed better with a 20.72% return vs 12.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AOM or TBFG?

AOM is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.42% for TBFG.

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

AOM has the higher dividend yield at 2.99%, compared with 2.41% for TBFG.

What is the main difference between AOM and TBFG?

AOM is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while TBFG is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: iShares and The Brinsmere Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for AOM and 0.42% for TBFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TBFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.98 vs 1.83), 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.