CGBL vs. AMBFX
CGBL (Capital Group Core Balanced ETF) and AMBFX (American Funds American Balanced Fund® Class F-2) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Over the past year, CGBL returned 18.61% vs 25.21% for AMBFX. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. CGBL charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for AMBFX.
Performance
CGBL vs. AMBFX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGBL achieves a 7.45% return, which is significantly lower than AMBFX's 10.06% return.
CGBL
- 1D
- -0.60%
- 1M
- 3.64%
- YTD
- 7.45%
- 6M
- 8.19%
- 1Y
- 18.61%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
AMBFX
- 1D
- 0.24%
- 1M
- 4.00%
- YTD
- 10.06%
- 6M
- 10.70%
- 1Y
- 25.21%
- 3Y*
- 17.77%
- 5Y*
- 9.94%
- 10Y*
- 10.47%
CGBL vs. AMBFX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF | 7.45% | 15.33% | 16.64% | 9.80% |
AMBFX American Funds American Balanced Fund® Class F-2 | 10.06% | 18.67% | 15.25% | 9.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGBL and AMBFX 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 Sep 29, 2023 | 0.97 |
The correlation between CGBL and AMBFX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
CGBL vs. AMBFX — Risk / Return Rank
CGBL
AMBFX
CGBL vs. AMBFX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) and American Funds American Balanced Fund® Class F-2 (AMBFX). 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.
| CGBL | AMBFX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.02 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.32 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.35 | 1.57 | -0.21 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.37 | 3.70 | -1.32 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.54 | 16.73 | -6.19 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CGBL | AMBFX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.95 | 2.96 | -1.02 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.95 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.98 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.72 | 0.78 | +0.94 |
Drawdowns
CGBL vs. AMBFX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGBL drawdown since its inception was -11.66%, smaller than the maximum AMBFX drawdown of -35.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGBL and AMBFX.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGBL | AMBFX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -11.66% | -35.05% | +23.39% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.88% | -7.00% | -0.88% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -10.64% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -18.65% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -22.31% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.60% | 0.00% | -0.60% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.29% | -3.58% | +2.29% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.77% | 1.54% | +0.23% |
Volatility
CGBL vs. AMBFX - Volatility Comparison
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) has a higher volatility of 3.14% compared to American Funds American Balanced Fund® Class F-2 (AMBFX) at 2.67%. This indicates that CGBL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AMBFX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGBL | AMBFX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.14% | 2.67% | +0.47% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.85% | 6.86% | +0.99% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.61% | 8.73% | +0.88% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 11.03% | 10.50% | +0.53% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 11.03% | 10.67% | +0.36% |
CGBL vs. AMBFX - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGBL has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is lower than AMBFX's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGBL vs. AMBFX - Dividend Comparison
CGBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.86%, less than AMBFX's 7.72% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AMBFX American Funds American Balanced Fund® Class F-2 | 7.72% | 8.47% | 7.40% | 2.20% | 2.52% | 4.50% | 4.56% | 4.19% | 6.20% | 4.85% | 4.46% | 5.81% |
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF | 1.86% | 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
With a correlation of 0.96, CGBL and AMBFX 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.
CGBL has higher volatility (3.14%) compared to AMBFX (2.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGBL dropped -11.66% vs AMBFX's -35.05%.
AMBFX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.96 vs 1.95), 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.
Find the right allocation for CGBL and AMBFX
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