CGBL vs. AOA
CGBL (Capital Group Core Balanced ETF) and AOA (iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGBL is a Allocation--50% to 70% Equity fund actively managed by Capital Group, while AOA is a Diversified Portfolio fund tracking the S&P Target Risk Aggressive Index. CGBL is actively managed, while AOA is passively managed. Over the past year, CGBL returned 16.68% vs 21.66% for AOA. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGBL charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for AOA.
Performance
CGBL vs. AOA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGBL achieves a 6.51% return, which is significantly lower than AOA's 8.19% return.
CGBL
- 1D
- -1.19%
- 1M
- 1.00%
- YTD
- 6.51%
- 6M
- 6.08%
- 1Y
- 16.68%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
AOA
- 1D
- -1.54%
- 1M
- -0.18%
- YTD
- 8.19%
- 6M
- 7.63%
- 1Y
- 21.66%
- 3Y*
- 16.66%
- 5Y*
- 8.78%
- 10Y*
- 10.74%
CGBL vs. AOA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF | 6.51% | 15.33% | 16.64% | 10.10% |
AOA iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF | 8.19% | 19.59% | 13.55% | 10.58% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGBL and AOA is 0.94, 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 | 0.94 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2023 | 0.93 |
The correlation between CGBL and AOA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.94 - 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. AOA — Risk / Return Rank
CGBL
AOA
CGBL vs. AOA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) and iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF (AOA). 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.
| CGBL | AOA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.30 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.34 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.36 | -0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.13 | 2.65 | -0.53 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.24 | 11.52 | -2.27 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CGBL vs. AOA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGBL drawdown since its inception was -11.66%, smaller than the maximum AOA drawdown of -28.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGBL and AOA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGBL | AOA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -11.66% | -28.38% | +16.72% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.88% | -8.20% | +0.32% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -12.94% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -23.62% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -28.38% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.50% | -2.08% | +0.58% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.29% | -4.04% | +2.75% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.81% | 1.88% | -0.07% |
Volatility
CGBL vs. AOA - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) is 4.18%, while iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF (AOA) has a volatility of 4.43%. This indicates that CGBL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AOA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGBL | AOA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.18% | 4.43% | -0.25% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.54% | 9.34% | -0.80% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.25% | 11.25% | -1.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 11.17% | 13.09% | -1.92% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 11.17% | 13.51% | -2.34% |
CGBL vs. AOA - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGBL has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than AOA's 0.15% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGBL vs. AOA - Dividend Comparison
CGBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.87%, less than AOA's 2.08% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AOA iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF | 2.08% | 2.18% | 2.30% | 2.22% | 2.10% | 1.67% | 1.71% | 2.50% | 2.37% | 5.09% | 2.26% | 2.15% |
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF | 1.87% | 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 0.94, CGBL and AOA 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.
AOA has higher volatility (4.43%) compared to CGBL (4.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGBL dropped -11.66% vs AOA's -28.38%.
On 1-year performance, AOA leads with 21.66% vs 16.68% for CGBL. On fees, AOA is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, CGBL has been the lower-risk option at 4.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, AOA has performed better with a 21.66% return vs 16.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
AOA is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CGBL.
AOA has the higher dividend yield at 2.08%, compared with 1.87% for CGBL.
CGBL is categorized as Allocation--50% to 70% Equity, while AOA is Diversified Portfolio. They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CGBL and 0.15% for AOA.
AOA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.94 vs 1.64), 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 AOA
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