AVNM vs. CGIC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AVNM (Avantis All International Markets Equity ETF) and CGIC (Capital Group International Core Equity ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, AVNM returned 35.92% vs 30.79% for CGIC. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. AVNM charges 0.31%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for CGIC.

Performance

AVNM vs. CGIC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Avantis All International Markets Equity ETF (AVNM) and Capital Group International Core Equity ETF (CGIC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AVNM achieves a 14.81% return, which is significantly higher than CGIC's 12.85% return.

AVNM

• 1D: -1.14%
• 1M: 4.33%
• YTD: 14.81%
• 6M: 17.96%
• 1Y: 35.92%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CGIC

• 1D: -1.04%
• 1M: 5.13%
• YTD: 12.85%
• 6M: 15.39%
• 1Y: 30.79%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AVNM vs. CGIC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
AVNM Avantis All International Markets Equity ETF	14.81%	38.30%	-0.14%
CGIC Capital Group International Core Equity ETF	12.85%	37.53%	-2.81%

Correlation

The correlation between AVNM and CGIC is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 28, 2024	0.96

The correlation between AVNM and CGIC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

AVNM vs. CGIC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AVNM	CGIC
Financial Services	23.2%	20.2%
Industrials	17.1%	13.9%
Technology	12.5%	16.7%
Basic Materials	11.7%	8.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	7.4%
Energy	8.3%	6.2%
Healthcare	4.4%	5.6%
Communication Services	4.3%	7.3%
Consumer Defensive	3.9%	8.1%
Utilities	2.9%	4.1%
Real Estate	1.7%	1.8%

Return for Risk

AVNM vs. CGIC — Risk / Return Rank

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

AVNM

AVNM Risk / Return Rank: 69
AVNM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
AVNM Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
AVNM Omega Ratio Rank: 73
AVNM Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
AVNM Martin Ratio Rank: 65

CGIC

CGIC Risk / Return Rank: 58
CGIC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
CGIC Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
CGIC Omega Ratio Rank: 60
CGIC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
CGIC Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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.

AVNM vs. CGIC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Avantis All International Markets Equity ETF (AVNM) and Capital Group International Core Equity ETF (CGIC). 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.

	AVNM	CGIC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.44	2.06	+0.38
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.26	2.83	+0.43
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.37	+0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.11	2.74	+0.38
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.16	10.54	+1.62
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AVNM vs. CGIC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AVNM Sharpe Ratio is 2.44, which is comparable to the CGIC Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AVNM and CGIC, 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

	AVNM	CGIC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.44	2.06	+0.38
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.54	1.48	+0.06

Drawdowns

AVNM vs. CGIC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AVNM drawdown since its inception was -14.03%, which is greater than CGIC's maximum drawdown of -13.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AVNM and CGIC.

Drawdown Indicators

	AVNM	CGIC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.03%	-13.10%	-0.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.59%	-11.30%	-0.29%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.14%	-1.04%	-0.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.55%	-2.54%	-0.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.96%	2.93%	+0.03%

Volatility

AVNM vs. CGIC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Avantis All International Markets Equity ETF (AVNM) is 5.19%, while Capital Group International Core Equity ETF (CGIC) has a volatility of 5.82%. This indicates that AVNM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGIC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AVNM	CGIC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.19%	5.82%	-0.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.59%	12.82%	-0.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.82%	15.01%	-0.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.86%	16.14%	-1.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.86%	16.14%	-1.28%

AVNM vs. CGIC - Expense Ratio Comparison

AVNM has a 0.31% expense ratio, which is lower than CGIC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

AVNM vs. CGIC - Dividend Comparison

AVNM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.51%, more than CGIC's 1.32% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
AVNM Avantis All International Markets Equity ETF	2.51%	2.76%	3.51%	1.69%
CGIC Capital Group International Core Equity ETF	1.32%	1.60%	0.68%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AVNM and CGIC in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, AVNM and CGIC 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, AVNM or CGIC?

CGIC has higher volatility (5.82%) compared to AVNM (5.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AVNM dropped -14.03% vs CGIC's -13.10%.

Which ETF is better, AVNM or CGIC?

On 1-year performance, AVNM leads with 35.92% vs 30.79% for CGIC. On fees, AVNM is cheaper at 0.31% per year. On volatility, AVNM has been the lower-risk option at 5.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AVNM or CGIC?

Over the 1-year period, AVNM has performed better with a 35.92% return vs 30.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AVNM or CGIC?

AVNM is cheaper with a 0.31% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for CGIC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AVNM or CGIC?

AVNM has the higher dividend yield at 2.51%, compared with 1.32% for CGIC.

What is the main difference between AVNM and CGIC?

They also come from different issuers: Avantis and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.31% for AVNM and 0.54% for CGIC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AVNM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.44 vs 2.06), 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.