BBEM vs. CGNG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

BBEM (JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and CGNG (Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. BBEM is passively managed, while CGNG is actively managed. Over the past year, BBEM returned 34.07% vs 26.76% for CGNG. Their correlation of 0.91 means they have usually moved in the same direction. BBEM charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.64%/yr for CGNG.

Performance

BBEM vs. CGNG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM) and Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF (CGNG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BBEM achieves a 17.16% return, which is significantly higher than CGNG's 11.71% return.

BBEM

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: -2.28%
• 6M: 9.39%
• YTD: 17.16%
• 1Y: 34.07%
• 3Y*: 17.55%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.69%

CGNG

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: -1.33%
• 6M: 5.94%
• YTD: 11.71%
• 1Y: 26.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.76%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BBEM JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$4.42M	$2.79M	$2.95M
CGNG Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF	$26.72M	$26.11M	$26.33M

BBEM vs. CGNG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BBEM JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	17.16%	32.43%	-0.75%
CGNG Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF	11.71%	29.78%	-1.17%

Correlation

The correlation between BBEM and CGNG is 0.94, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2024	0.91

The correlation between BBEM and CGNG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

BBEM vs. CGNG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BBEM	CGNG
Technology	25.0%	37.8%
Financial Services	12.2%	15.3%
Consumer Cyclical	5.9%	8.0%
Communication Services	4.6%	9.4%
Basic Materials	3.5%	7.1%
Industrials	3.2%	10.4%
Energy	1.8%	2.2%
Consumer Defensive	1.6%	3.2%
Utilities	1.5%	1.6%
Healthcare	1.3%	4.0%
Real Estate	0.6%	1.1%

Return for Risk

BBEM vs. CGNG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BBEM

BBEM Risk / Return Rank: 62
BBEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
BBEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
BBEM Omega Ratio Rank: 62
BBEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
BBEM Martin Ratio Rank: 63

CGNG

CGNG Risk / Return Rank: 51
CGNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
CGNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
CGNG Omega Ratio Rank: 51
CGNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
CGNG Martin Ratio Rank: 56

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BBEM vs. CGNG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM) and Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF (CGNG). 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.

	BBEM	CGNG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.40	1.19	+0.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.94	1.72	+0.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.23	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.50	1.88	+0.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.64	6.68	+0.96

BBEM vs. CGNG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BBEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.40, which is comparable to the CGNG Sharpe Ratio of 1.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BBEM and CGNG, 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

BBEM vs. CGNG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BBEM drawdown since its inception was -17.42%, which is greater than CGNG's maximum drawdown of -15.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BBEM and CGNG.

Drawdown Indicators

	BBEM	CGNG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.42%	-15.90%	-1.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.37%	-13.75%	+0.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.42%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.54%	-6.40%	-3.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.84%	-2.98%	-0.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.37%	3.85%	+0.52%

Volatility

BBEM vs. CGNG - Volatility Comparison

JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM) has a higher volatility of 8.89% compared to Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF (CGNG) at 7.73%. This indicates that BBEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGNG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BBEM	CGNG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.89%	7.73%	+1.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.92%	19.66%	+2.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.91%	21.64%	+2.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.86%	19.55%	-0.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.86%	19.55%	-0.69%

BBEM vs. CGNG - Expense Ratio Comparison

BBEM has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than CGNG's 0.64% expense ratio.

Dividends

BBEM vs. CGNG - Dividend Comparison

BBEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.95%, more than CGNG's 0.61% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BBEM JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	4.95%	5.86%	2.73%	1.94%
CGNG Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF	0.61%	0.68%	0.27%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BBEM and CGNG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, BBEM and CGNG 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, BBEM or CGNG?

BBEM has higher volatility (8.89%) compared to CGNG (7.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BBEM dropped -17.42% vs CGNG's -15.90%.

Which ETF is better, BBEM or CGNG?

On 1-year performance, BBEM leads with 34.07% vs 26.76% for CGNG. On fees, BBEM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, CGNG has been the lower-risk option at 7.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BBEM or CGNG?

Over the 1-year period, BBEM has performed better with a 34.07% return vs 26.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BBEM or CGNG?

BBEM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.64% for CGNG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BBEM or CGNG?

BBEM has the higher dividend yield at 4.95%, compared with 0.61% for CGNG.

What is the main difference between BBEM and CGNG?

They also come from different issuers: JPMorgan and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for BBEM and 0.64% for CGNG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BBEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.40 vs 1.19), 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.