CGCB vs. IBTM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGCB (Capital Group Core Bond ETF) and IBTM (iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF) are both Intermediate Core Bond funds. CGCB is actively managed, while IBTM is passively managed. Over the past year, CGCB returned 5.06% vs 3.93% for IBTM. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGCB charges 0.27%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IBTM.

Performance

CGCB vs. IBTM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group Core Bond ETF (CGCB) and iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF (IBTM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGCB achieves a 0.05% return, which is significantly higher than IBTM's -0.50% return.

CGCB

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 0.18%
• YTD: 0.05%
• 6M: 0.01%
• 1Y: 5.06%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBTM

• 1D: -0.18%
• 1M: -0.15%
• YTD: -0.50%
• 6M: -0.81%
• 1Y: 3.93%
• 3Y*: 2.68%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CGCB vs. IBTM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CGCB Capital Group Core Bond ETF	0.05%	7.29%	1.44%	6.80%
IBTM iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF	-0.50%	8.06%	-0.14%	6.50%

Correlation

The correlation between CGCB and IBTM is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2023	0.93

The correlation between CGCB and IBTM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CGCB vs. IBTM — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGCB

CGCB Risk / Return Rank: 35
CGCB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
CGCB Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
CGCB Omega Ratio Rank: 33
CGCB Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
CGCB Martin Ratio Rank: 34

IBTM

IBTM Risk / Return Rank: 26
IBTM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
IBTM Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
IBTM Omega Ratio Rank: 25
IBTM Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
IBTM Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

CGCB vs. IBTM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group Core Bond ETF (CGCB) and iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF (IBTM). 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.

	CGCB	IBTM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.29	0.96	+0.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.92	1.46	+0.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.17	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.71	1.21	+0.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.16	3.51	+1.65
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGCB vs. IBTM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGCB Sharpe Ratio is 1.29, which is higher than the IBTM Sharpe Ratio of 0.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGCB and IBTM, 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

	CGCB	IBTM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.29	0.96	+0.32
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.08	0.20	+0.88

Drawdowns

CGCB vs. IBTM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGCB drawdown since its inception was -5.17%, smaller than the maximum IBTM drawdown of -13.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGCB and IBTM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGCB	IBTM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.17%	-13.60%	+8.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.98%	-3.26%	+0.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.86%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.83%	-2.38%	+0.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.34%	-4.82%	+3.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.98%	1.12%	-0.14%

Volatility

CGCB vs. IBTM - Volatility Comparison

Capital Group Core Bond ETF (CGCB) has a higher volatility of 1.32% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF (IBTM) at 1.20%. This indicates that CGCB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBTM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGCB	IBTM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.32%	1.20%	+0.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.80%	2.75%	+0.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.94%	4.09%	-0.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.39%	7.56%	-2.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.39%	7.56%	-2.17%

CGCB vs. IBTM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGCB has a 0.27% expense ratio, which is higher than IBTM's 0.07% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

CGCB vs. IBTM - Dividend Comparison

CGCB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.22%, more than IBTM's 3.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CGCB Capital Group Core Bond ETF	4.22%	4.22%	3.99%	0.95%	0.00%
IBTM iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF	3.95%	3.87%	3.96%	3.39%	1.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGCB and IBTM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, CGCB and IBTM 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, CGCB or IBTM?

CGCB has higher volatility (1.32%) compared to IBTM (1.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGCB dropped -5.17% vs IBTM's -13.60%.

Which ETF is better, CGCB or IBTM?

On 1-year performance, CGCB leads with 5.06% vs 3.93% for IBTM. On fees, IBTM is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, IBTM has been the lower-risk option at 1.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGCB or IBTM?

Over the 1-year period, CGCB has performed better with a 5.06% return vs 3.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGCB or IBTM?

IBTM is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.27% for CGCB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGCB or IBTM?

CGCB has the higher dividend yield at 4.22%, compared with 3.95% for IBTM.

What is the main difference between CGCB and IBTM?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.27% for CGCB and 0.07% for IBTM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGCB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.29 vs 0.96), 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.