AOR vs. CGBL

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

AOR (iShares Core Growth Allocation ETF) and CGBL (Capital Group Core Balanced ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. AOR is passively managed, while CGBL is actively managed. Over the past year, AOR returned 20.12% vs 19.85% for CGBL. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AOR charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CGBL.

Performance

AOR vs. CGBL - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with AOR having a 7.96% return and CGBL slightly higher at 8.10%.

AOR

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: 3.07%
• YTD: 7.96%
• 6M: 8.80%
• 1Y: 20.12%
• 3Y*: 14.41%
• 5Y*: 7.20%
• 10Y*: 8.46%

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)

AOR vs. CGBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
AOR iShares Core Growth Allocation ETF	7.96%	16.44%	10.68%	8.95%
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	8.10%	15.33%	16.64%	9.80%

Correlation

The correlation between AOR and CGBL 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 Sep 29, 2023	0.92

The correlation between AOR and CGBL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

AOR vs. CGBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AOR	CGBL
Technology	27.8%	29.9%
Financial Services	16.2%	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

AOR vs. CGBL — Risk / Return Rank

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

AOR

AOR Risk / Return Rank: 71
AOR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
AOR Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
AOR Omega Ratio Rank: 75
AOR Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
AOR Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

AOR vs. CGBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core Growth 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.

	AOR	CGBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.41	2.08	+0.33
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.43	3.00	+0.43
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.38	+0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.08	2.60	+0.48
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	13.48	11.57	+1.91
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AOR vs. CGBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AOR Sharpe Ratio is 2.41, which is comparable to the CGBL Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AOR 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

	AOR	CGBL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.41	2.08	+0.33
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.80	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.69	1.75	-1.05

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	AOR	CGBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest 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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.48%	-1.29%	-2.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.52%	1.77%	-0.25%

Volatility

AOR vs. CGBL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core Growth Allocation ETF (AOR) is 2.70%, while Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) has a volatility of 3.12%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	AOR	CGBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.70%	3.12%	-0.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.81%	7.85%	-1.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.40%	9.59%	-1.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.55%	11.03%	-0.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.67%	11.03%	-0.36%

AOR vs. CGBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

AOR has a 0.25% 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 2.46%, more than CGBL's 1.84% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AOR iShares Core Growth Allocation ETF	2.46%	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	1.84%	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 AOR and CGBL in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, 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.

Which is riskier, AOR or CGBL?

CGBL has higher volatility (3.12%) compared to AOR (2.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AOR dropped -24.44% vs CGBL's -11.66%.

Which ETF is better, AOR or CGBL?

On 1-year performance, AOR leads with 20.12% vs 19.85% for CGBL. On fees, AOR is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, AOR has been the lower-risk option at 2.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AOR or CGBL?

Over the 1-year period, AOR has performed better with a 20.12% return vs 19.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AOR or CGBL?

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

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

AOR has the higher dividend yield at 2.46%, compared with 1.84% for CGBL.

What is the main difference between AOR and CGBL?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AOR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 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.