AOR vs. CGBL
AOR (iShares Core 60/40 Balanced Allocation ETF) and CGBL (Capital Group Core Balanced ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AOR is a Diversified Portfolio fund tracking the S&P Target Risk Growth Index, while CGBL is a Allocation--50% to 70% Equity fund actively managed by Capital Group. AOR is passively managed, while CGBL is actively managed. Over the past year, AOR returned 17.17% vs 16.68% for CGBL. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AOR charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CGBL.
Performance
AOR vs. CGBL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with AOR having a 6.31% return and CGBL slightly higher at 6.51%.
AOR
- 1D
- -1.18%
- 1M
- -0.01%
- YTD
- 6.31%
- 6M
- 5.96%
- 1Y
- 17.17%
- 3Y*
- 13.59%
- 5Y*
- 6.73%
- 10Y*
- 8.54%
CGBL
- 1D
- -1.19%
- 1M
- 1.00%
- YTD
- 6.51%
- 6M
- 6.08%
- 1Y
- 16.68%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
AOR vs. CGBL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
AOR iShares Core 60/40 Balanced Allocation ETF | 6.31% | 16.44% | 10.68% | 9.63% |
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF | 6.51% | 15.33% | 16.64% | 10.10% |
Correlation
The correlation between AOR and CGBL is 0.94, 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 | 0.94 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2023 | 0.92 |
The correlation between AOR and CGBL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.94 - 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
AOR vs. CGBL — Risk / Return Rank
AOR
CGBL
AOR vs. CGBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core 60/40 Balanced Allocation ETF (AOR) 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.
| AOR | CGBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.29 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.37 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.30 | +0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.60 | 2.13 | +0.47 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.13 | 9.24 | +1.88 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
AOR vs. CGBL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AOR drawdown since its inception was -24.44%, which is greater than CGBL's maximum drawdown of -11.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AOR and CGBL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| AOR | CGBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -24.44% | -11.66% | -12.78% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.64% | -7.88% | +1.24% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -9.77% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -21.72% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -22.95% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.53% | -1.50% | -0.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.47% | -1.29% | -2.18% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.55% | 1.81% | -0.26% |
Volatility
AOR vs. CGBL - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Core 60/40 Balanced Allocation ETF (AOR) is 3.61%, while Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) has a volatility of 4.18%. This indicates that AOR 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
| AOR | CGBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.61% | 4.18% | -0.57% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.49% | 8.54% | -1.05% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 8.96% | 10.25% | -1.29% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 10.64% | 11.17% | -0.53% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 10.66% | 11.17% | -0.51% |
AOR vs. CGBL - Expense Ratio Comparison
AOR has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than CGBL's 0.33% expense ratio.
Dividends
AOR vs. CGBL - Dividend Comparison
AOR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.49%, more than CGBL's 1.87% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AOR iShares Core 60/40 Balanced Allocation ETF | 2.49% | 2.55% | 2.66% | 2.50% | 2.12% | 1.64% | 1.89% | 2.56% | 2.49% | 4.51% | 2.16% | 2.12% |
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF | 1.87% | 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 0.94, AOR 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 (4.18%) compared to AOR (3.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AOR dropped -24.44% vs CGBL's -11.66%.
On 1-year performance, AOR leads with 17.17% vs 16.68% for CGBL. On fees, AOR is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, AOR has been the lower-risk option at 3.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, AOR has performed better with a 17.17% return vs 16.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
AOR is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CGBL.
AOR has the higher dividend yield at 2.49%, compared with 1.87% for CGBL.
AOR is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while CGBL is Allocation--50% to 70% Equity. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for AOR and 0.33% for CGBL.
AOR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.93 vs 1.64), 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 AOR 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