AVMA vs. EAOM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AVMA (Avantis Moderate Allocation ETF) and EAOM (iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. AVMA is actively managed, while EAOM is passively managed. Over the past year, AVMA returned 23.97% vs 14.66% for EAOM. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AVMA charges 0.21%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for EAOM.

Performance

AVMA vs. EAOM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Avantis Moderate Allocation ETF (AVMA) and iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF (EAOM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AVMA achieves a 10.43% return, which is significantly higher than EAOM's 5.08% return.

AVMA

• 1D: -0.44%
• 1M: 2.85%
• YTD: 10.43%
• 6M: 11.18%
• 1Y: 23.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EAOM

• 1D: -0.45%
• 1M: 2.36%
• YTD: 5.08%
• 6M: 5.24%
• 1Y: 14.66%
• 3Y*: 10.47%
• 5Y*: 4.28%
• 10Y*: —

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

AVMA vs. EAOM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
AVMA Avantis Moderate Allocation ETF	10.43%	16.72%	10.01%	8.19%
EAOM iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF	5.08%	12.90%	7.29%	5.43%

Correlation

The correlation between AVMA and EAOM is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2023	0.91

The correlation between AVMA and EAOM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

AVMA vs. EAOM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AVMA	EAOM
Technology	19.2%	30.2%
Financial Services	18.0%	16.6%
Industrials	13.6%	11.0%
Consumer Cyclical	12.0%	9.5%
Energy	8.9%	3.8%
Communication Services	6.9%	8.3%
Healthcare	6.0%	8.6%
Basic Materials	5.3%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	4.4%
Real Estate	3.3%	2.3%
Utilities	2.1%	2.5%

Return for Risk

AVMA vs. EAOM — Risk / Return Rank

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

AVMA

AVMA Risk / Return Rank: 80
AVMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
AVMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
AVMA Omega Ratio Rank: 82
AVMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
AVMA Martin Ratio Rank: 80

EAOM

EAOM Risk / Return Rank: 68
EAOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
EAOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
EAOM Omega Ratio Rank: 72
EAOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
EAOM Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

AVMA vs. EAOM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Avantis Moderate Allocation ETF (AVMA) and iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF (EAOM). 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.

	AVMA	EAOM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.68	2.29	+0.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.84	3.31	+0.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.43	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.76	2.85	+0.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.96	12.53	+3.42
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AVMA vs. EAOM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AVMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.68, which is comparable to the EAOM Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AVMA and EAOM, 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

	AVMA	EAOM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.68	2.29	+0.39
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.53	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.54	0.76	+0.78

Drawdowns

AVMA vs. EAOM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AVMA drawdown since its inception was -11.81%, smaller than the maximum EAOM drawdown of -20.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AVMA and EAOM.

Drawdown Indicators

	AVMA	EAOM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.81%	-20.73%	+8.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.40%	-5.17%	-1.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.63%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.44%	-0.45%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.55%	-4.97%	+3.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.51%	1.17%	+0.34%

Volatility

AVMA vs. EAOM - Volatility Comparison

Avantis Moderate Allocation ETF (AVMA) has a higher volatility of 2.63% compared to iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF (EAOM) at 2.31%. This indicates that AVMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EAOM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AVMA	EAOM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.63%	2.31%	+0.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.08%	5.24%	+1.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.99%	6.44%	+2.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.29%	8.07%	+2.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.29%	7.91%	+2.38%

AVMA vs. EAOM - Expense Ratio Comparison

AVMA has a 0.21% expense ratio, which is higher than EAOM's 0.18% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

AVMA vs. EAOM - Dividend Comparison

AVMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.34%, less than EAOM's 2.78% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
AVMA Avantis Moderate Allocation ETF	2.34%	2.21%	2.28%	1.11%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EAOM iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF	2.78%	2.89%	2.89%	2.70%	1.93%	1.32%	1.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AVMA and EAOM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, AVMA and EAOM 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, AVMA or EAOM?

AVMA has higher volatility (2.63%) compared to EAOM (2.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AVMA dropped -11.81% vs EAOM's -20.73%.

Which ETF is better, AVMA or EAOM?

On 1-year performance, AVMA leads with 23.97% vs 14.66% for EAOM. On fees, EAOM is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, EAOM has been the lower-risk option at 2.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AVMA or EAOM?

Over the 1-year period, AVMA has performed better with a 23.97% return vs 14.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AVMA or EAOM?

EAOM is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.21% for AVMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AVMA or EAOM?

EAOM has the higher dividend yield at 2.78%, compared with 2.34% for AVMA.

What is the main difference between AVMA and EAOM?

They also come from different issuers: Avantis and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.21% for AVMA and 0.18% for EAOM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AVMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.68 vs 2.29), 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.