PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CGGG vs. CGMS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CGGG vs. CGMS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group U.S. Large Growth ETF (CGGG) and Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF (CGMS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGGG achieves a -1.42% return, which is significantly lower than CGMS's 1.63% return.


CGGG

1D
-2.05%
1M
-2.10%
6M
-2.36%
YTD
-1.42%
1Y
4.89%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

CGMS

1D
-0.04%
1M
-0.28%
6M
1.08%
YTD
1.63%
1Y
5.56%
3Y*
7.55%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGGG vs. CGMS - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between CGGG and CGMS is 0.51, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.51

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025

0.51

The correlation between CGGG and CGMS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.51 - 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

CGGG vs. CGMS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGGG
CGGG Risk / Return Rank: 1313
Overall Rank
CGGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1414
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 1313
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGGG Omega Ratio Rank: 1313
Omega Ratio Rank
CGGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 1313
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGGG Martin Ratio Rank: 1414
Martin Ratio Rank

CGMS
CGMS Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
CGMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGMS Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
CGMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGMS Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

CGGG vs. CGMS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group U.S. Large Growth ETF (CGGG) and Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF (CGMS). 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.


CGGGCGMSDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.35

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.91

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.06

1.30

-0.24

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.28

2.26

-1.98

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.90

9.99

-9.09

CGGG vs. CGMS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGGG Sharpe Ratio is 0.26, which is lower than the CGMS Sharpe Ratio of 1.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGGG and CGMS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

CGGG vs. CGMS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGGG drawdown since its inception was -17.75%, which is greater than CGMS's maximum drawdown of -4.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGGG and CGMS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CGGGCGMSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-17.75%

-4.08%

-13.67%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.75%

-2.47%

-15.28%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-4.08%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.26%

-0.36%

-4.90%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.86%

-0.66%

-3.20%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.46%

0.56%

+4.90%

Volatility

CGGG vs. CGMS - Volatility Comparison

Capital Group U.S. Large Growth ETF (CGGG) has a higher volatility of 6.08% compared to Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF (CGMS) at 0.89%. This indicates that CGGG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGMS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CGGGCGMSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.08%

0.89%

+5.19%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.29%

2.83%

+12.46%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.69%

3.46%

+15.23%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.40%

5.09%

+13.31%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.40%

5.09%

+13.31%

CGGG vs. CGMS - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CGGG and CGMS have an expense ratio of 0.39%.


Dividends

CGGG vs. CGMS - Dividend Comparison

CGGG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.09%, less than CGMS's 6.14% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022
CGGG
Capital Group U.S. Large Growth ETF
0.09%0.07%0.00%0.00%0.00%
CGMS
Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF
6.14%6.00%5.91%5.84%0.97%

Frequently Asked Questions


CGGG and CGMS have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CGGG has higher volatility (6.08%) compared to CGMS (0.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGGG dropped -17.75% vs CGMS's -4.08%.

On 1-year performance, CGMS leads with 5.56% vs 4.89% for CGGG. Both ETFs have the same 0.39% expense ratio. On volatility, CGMS has been the lower-risk option at 0.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, CGMS has performed better with a 5.56% return vs 4.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CGGG and CGMS have the same expense ratio: 0.39% per year.

CGMS has the higher dividend yield at 6.14%, compared with 0.09% for CGGG.

CGGG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while CGMS is Multisector Bonds.

CGMS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.61 vs 0.26), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CGGG and CGMS

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