CGBL vs. EAOM

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGBL (Capital Group Core Balanced ETF) and EAOM (iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. CGBL is actively managed, while EAOM is passively managed. Over the past year, CGBL returned 18.31% vs 14.38% for EAOM. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGBL charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for EAOM.

Performance

CGBL vs. EAOM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) and iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF (EAOM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGBL achieves a 7.54% return, which is significantly higher than EAOM's 5.30% return.

CGBL

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 3.05%
• YTD: 7.54%
• 6M: 8.49%
• 1Y: 18.31%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EAOM

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: 2.02%
• YTD: 5.30%
• 6M: 5.55%
• 1Y: 14.38%
• 3Y*: 10.61%
• 5Y*: 4.32%
• 10Y*: —

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

CGBL vs. EAOM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	7.54%	15.33%	16.64%	9.80%
EAOM iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF	5.30%	12.90%	7.29%	8.48%

Correlation

The correlation between CGBL and EAOM is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2023	0.89

The correlation between CGBL and EAOM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGBL vs. EAOM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGBL	EAOM
Technology	29.9%	30.2%
Industrials	16.6%	11.0%
Financial Services	11.8%	16.6%
Healthcare	8.9%	8.6%
Consumer Cyclical	8.7%	9.5%
Communication Services	8.4%	8.3%
Basic Materials	7.2%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.2%	4.4%
Utilities	2.5%	2.5%
Energy	2.0%	3.8%
Real Estate	0.0%	2.3%

Return for Risk

CGBL vs. EAOM — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGBL

CGBL Risk / Return Rank: 57
CGBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
CGBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
CGBL Omega Ratio Rank: 58
CGBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
CGBL Martin Ratio Rank: 59

EAOM

EAOM Risk / Return Rank: 68
EAOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
EAOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
EAOM Omega Ratio Rank: 72
EAOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
EAOM Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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. EAOM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) and iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF (EAOM). 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	EAOM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.92	2.25	-0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.78	3.25	-0.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.42	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.33	2.79	-0.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.36	12.30	-1.93
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. EAOM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGBL Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is comparable to the EAOM Sharpe Ratio of 2.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGBL and EAOM, 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	EAOM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.92	2.25	-0.33
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.54	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.72	0.76	+0.96

Drawdowns

CGBL vs. EAOM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGBL drawdown since its inception was -11.66%, smaller than the maximum EAOM drawdown of -20.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGBL and EAOM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGBL	EAOM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.66%	-20.73%	+9.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.88%	-5.17%	-2.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.63%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.53%	-0.24%	-0.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.29%	-4.96%	+3.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.77%	1.17%	+0.60%

Volatility

CGBL vs. EAOM - Volatility Comparison

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) has a higher volatility of 3.10% compared to iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF (EAOM) at 2.27%. This indicates that CGBL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EAOM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGBL	EAOM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.10%	2.27%	+0.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.84%	5.24%	+2.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.60%	6.44%	+3.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.02%	8.06%	+2.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.02%	7.90%	+3.12%

CGBL vs. EAOM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGBL has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than EAOM's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGBL vs. EAOM - Dividend Comparison

CGBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.85%, less than EAOM's 2.78% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	1.85%	1.98%	1.92%	0.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EAOM iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF	2.78%	2.89%	2.89%	2.70%	1.93%	1.32%	1.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGBL and EAOM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, CGBL and EAOM 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, CGBL or EAOM?

CGBL has higher volatility (3.10%) compared to EAOM (2.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGBL dropped -11.66% vs EAOM's -20.73%.

Which ETF is better, CGBL or EAOM?

On 1-year performance, CGBL leads with 18.31% vs 14.38% for EAOM. On fees, EAOM is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, EAOM has been the lower-risk option at 2.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGBL or EAOM?

Over the 1-year period, CGBL has performed better with a 18.31% return vs 14.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGBL or EAOM?

EAOM is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CGBL.

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

EAOM has the higher dividend yield at 2.78%, compared with 1.85% for CGBL.

What is the main difference between CGBL and EAOM?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CGBL and 0.18% for EAOM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EAOM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.25 vs 1.92), 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.