CGBL vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGBL (Capital Group Core Balanced ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGBL is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Capital Group, while CLSM is a Tactical Allocation fund tracking the Actively Managed. CGBL is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. Over the past year, CGBL returned 18.61% vs 34.21% for CLSM. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGBL charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

CGBL vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) and Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGBL achieves a 7.45% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 20.45% return.

CGBL

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: 3.64%
• YTD: 7.45%
• 6M: 8.19%
• 1Y: 18.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLSM

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 9.23%
• YTD: 20.45%
• 6M: 20.19%
• 1Y: 34.21%
• 3Y*: 13.75%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CGBL vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	7.45%	15.33%	16.64%	9.80%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	20.45%	15.32%	1.87%	6.34%

Correlation

The correlation between CGBL and CLSM is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2023	0.79

The correlation between CGBL and CLSM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGBL vs. CLSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGBL	CLSM
Technology	29.9%	51.8%
Industrials	16.6%	1.0%
Financial Services	11.8%	0.1%
Healthcare	8.9%	1.4%
Consumer Cyclical	8.7%	4.4%
Communication Services	8.4%	5.5%
Basic Materials	7.2%	0.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.2%	34.8%
Utilities	2.5%	0.5%
Energy	2.0%	0.2%
Real Estate	0.0%	0.0%

Return for Risk

CGBL vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGBL

CGBL Risk / Return Rank: 55
CGBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
CGBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
CGBL Omega Ratio Rank: 57
CGBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
CGBL Martin Ratio Rank: 59

CLSM

CLSM Risk / Return Rank: 82
CLSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
CLSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
CLSM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CLSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
CLSM Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

CGBL vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) and Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM). 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	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.95	2.71	-0.76
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.82	3.58	-0.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.50	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.37	4.04	-1.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.54	16.72	-6.18
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGBL vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGBL Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is comparable to the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGBL and CLSM, 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

	CGBL	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.95	2.71	-0.76
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.72	0.35	+1.37

Drawdowns

CGBL vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGBL drawdown since its inception was -11.66%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGBL and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGBL	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.66%	-27.77%	+16.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.88%	-8.50%	+0.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.60%	-0.38%	-0.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.29%	-16.49%	+15.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.77%	2.05%	-0.28%

Volatility

CGBL vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) is 3.14%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 3.58%. This indicates that CGBL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CLSM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGBL	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.14%	3.58%	-0.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.85%	10.54%	-2.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.61%	12.70%	-3.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.03%	12.47%	-1.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.03%	12.47%	-1.44%

CGBL vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGBL has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGBL vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

CGBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.86%, more than CLSM's 0.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	1.86%	1.98%	1.92%	0.48%	0.00%	0.00%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	0.75%	0.90%	2.13%	2.58%	3.17%	0.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGBL and CLSM in my portfolio?

CGBL and CLSM have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGBL or CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (3.58%) compared to CGBL (3.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGBL dropped -11.66% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, CGBL or CLSM?

On 1-year performance, CLSM leads with 34.21% vs 18.61% for CGBL. On fees, CGBL is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, CGBL has been the lower-risk option at 3.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGBL or CLSM?

Over the 1-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 34.21% return vs 18.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGBL or CLSM?

CGBL is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.82% for CLSM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGBL or CLSM?

CGBL has the higher dividend yield at 1.86%, compared with 0.75% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between CGBL and CLSM?

CGBL is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while CLSM is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CGBL and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 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.