PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
BUSA vs. CGCV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

BUSA vs. CGCV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brandes U.S. Value ETF (BUSA) and Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF (CGCV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUSA achieves a 7.11% return, which is significantly higher than CGCV's 5.95% return.


BUSA

1D
-0.03%
1M
0.78%
YTD
7.11%
6M
10.58%
1Y
23.33%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

CGCV

1D
-0.25%
1M
2.81%
YTD
5.95%
6M
6.19%
1Y
16.96%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BUSA vs. CGCV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024
BUSA
Brandes U.S. Value ETF
7.11%17.56%7.24%
CGCV
Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF
5.95%16.62%7.44%

Correlation

The correlation between BUSA and CGCV is 0.76, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.76

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 28, 2024

0.82

The correlation between BUSA and CGCV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

BUSA vs. CGCV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
BUSA
CGCV

Healthcare

23.8%
13.9%

Financial Services

20.1%
12.2%

Technology

12.9%
23.6%

Industrials

12.4%
9.9%

Energy

7.3%
5.4%

Communication Services

5.6%
4.9%

Consumer Defensive

5.1%
10.0%

Consumer Cyclical

4.9%
7.0%

Basic Materials

4.1%
2.9%

Utilities

3.4%
8.6%

Real Estate

-

1.8%

Healthcare

BUSA
23.8%
CGCV
13.9%

Financial Services

BUSA
20.1%
CGCV
12.2%

Technology

BUSA
12.9%
CGCV
23.6%

Industrials

BUSA
12.4%
CGCV
9.9%

Energy

BUSA
7.3%
CGCV
5.4%

Communication Services

BUSA
5.6%
CGCV
4.9%

Consumer Defensive

BUSA
5.1%
CGCV
10.0%

Consumer Cyclical

BUSA
4.9%
CGCV
7.0%

Basic Materials

BUSA
4.1%
CGCV
2.9%

Utilities

BUSA
3.4%
CGCV
8.6%

Real Estate

BUSA

-

CGCV
1.8%

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

BUSA vs. CGCV — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUSA
BUSA Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
BUSA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BUSA Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
BUSA Omega Ratio Rank: 5656
Omega Ratio Rank
BUSA Calmar Ratio Rank: 6161
Calmar Ratio Rank
BUSA Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
Martin Ratio Rank

CGCV
CGCV Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
CGCV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5050
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGCV Sortino Ratio Rank: 5050
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGCV Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
CGCV Calmar Ratio Rank: 4343
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGCV Martin Ratio Rank: 5151
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

BUSA vs. CGCV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brandes U.S. Value ETF (BUSA) and Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF (CGCV). 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.


BUSACGCVDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.98

1.75

+0.23

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.82

2.47

+0.35

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.32

+0.03

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.06

2.15

+0.91

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

10.44

8.67

+1.76

BUSA vs. CGCV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUSA Sharpe Ratio is 1.98, which is comparable to the CGCV Sharpe Ratio of 1.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUSA and CGCV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


BUSACGCVDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.98

1.75

+0.23

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.46

1.26

+0.20

Drawdowns

BUSA vs. CGCV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUSA drawdown since its inception was -14.19%, which is greater than CGCV's maximum drawdown of -13.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUSA and CGCV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


BUSACGCVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-14.19%

-13.13%

-1.06%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.61%

-7.93%

+0.32%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.68%

-0.25%

-0.43%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.15%

-1.67%

-0.48%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.23%

1.96%

+0.27%

Volatility

BUSA vs. CGCV - Volatility Comparison

Brandes U.S. Value ETF (BUSA) has a higher volatility of 2.74% compared to Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF (CGCV) at 2.41%. This indicates that BUSA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGCV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


BUSACGCVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.74%

2.41%

+0.33%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.47%

7.45%

+1.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.82%

9.72%

+2.10%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.66%

12.65%

+1.01%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.66%

12.65%

+1.01%

BUSA vs. CGCV - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUSA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than CGCV's 0.33% expense ratio.


Dividends

BUSA vs. CGCV - Dividend Comparison

BUSA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, which matches CGCV's 1.46% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023
BUSA
Brandes U.S. Value ETF
1.47%1.53%1.37%0.22%
CGCV
Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF
1.46%1.44%0.68%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


BUSA and CGCV have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BUSA has higher volatility (2.74%) compared to CGCV (2.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUSA dropped -14.19% vs CGCV's -13.13%.

On 1-year performance, BUSA leads with 23.33% vs 16.96% for CGCV. On fees, CGCV is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, CGCV has been the lower-risk option at 2.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, BUSA has performed better with a 23.33% return vs 16.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CGCV is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for BUSA.

BUSA and CGCV have nearly identical dividend yields, around 1.47%.

They also come from different issuers: Brandes and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for BUSA and 0.33% for CGCV.

BUSA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.98 vs 1.75), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BUSA and CGCV

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