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

Performance

CGGG vs. MFUS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group U.S. Large Growth ETF (CGGG) and PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF (MFUS). 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 -0.82% return, which is significantly lower than MFUS's 16.78% return.


CGGG

1D
-1.58%
1M
0.95%
6M
-3.09%
YTD
-0.82%
1Y
6.68%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

MFUS

1D
-0.55%
1M
-0.67%
6M
13.13%
YTD
16.78%
1Y
24.44%
3Y*
20.42%
5Y*
13.14%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGGG vs. MFUS - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between CGGG and MFUS is 0.65, 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

0.65

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

0.64

The correlation between CGGG and MFUS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.65 - 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. MFUS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGGG
CGGG Risk / Return Rank: 1515
Overall Rank
CGGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1616
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 1515
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGGG Omega Ratio Rank: 1515
Omega Ratio Rank
CGGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 1414
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGGG Martin Ratio Rank: 1616
Martin Ratio Rank

MFUS
MFUS Risk / Return Rank: 8686
Overall Rank
MFUS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MFUS Sortino Ratio Rank: 8686
Sortino Ratio Rank
MFUS Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
MFUS Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
MFUS Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
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. MFUS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group U.S. Large Growth ETF (CGGG) and PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF (MFUS). 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.


CGGGMFUSDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.81

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.48

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.08

1.39

-0.31

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.38

3.84

-3.47

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.23

15.36

-14.13

CGGG vs. MFUS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGGG Sharpe Ratio is 0.36, which is lower than the MFUS Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGGG and MFUS, 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. MFUS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGGG drawdown since its inception was -17.75%, smaller than the maximum MFUS drawdown of -35.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGGG and MFUS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CGGGMFUSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-17.75%

-35.21%

+17.46%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.75%

-6.39%

-11.36%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.39%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.22%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.69%

-2.00%

-2.69%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.86%

-3.96%

+0.10%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.44%

1.59%

+3.85%

Volatility

CGGG vs. MFUS - Volatility Comparison

Capital Group U.S. Large Growth ETF (CGGG) has a higher volatility of 6.72% compared to PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF (MFUS) at 4.03%. This indicates that CGGG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MFUS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CGGGMFUSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.72%

4.03%

+2.69%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.12%

9.08%

+6.04%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.58%

11.34%

+7.24%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.35%

15.07%

+3.28%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.35%

17.32%

+1.03%

CGGG vs. MFUS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGGG has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than MFUS's 0.30% expense ratio.


Dividends

CGGG vs. MFUS - Dividend Comparison

CGGG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.09%, less than MFUS's 1.37% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020201920182017
CGGG
Capital Group U.S. Large Growth ETF
0.09%0.07%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
MFUS
PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF
1.37%1.54%1.45%1.96%2.07%1.35%1.72%1.89%1.69%1.01%

Frequently Asked Questions


CGGG and MFUS have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CGGG has higher volatility (6.72%) compared to MFUS (4.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGGG dropped -17.75% vs MFUS's -35.21%.

On 1-year performance, MFUS leads with 24.44% vs 6.68% for CGGG. On fees, MFUS is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, MFUS has been the lower-risk option at 4.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, MFUS has performed better with a 24.44% return vs 6.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

MFUS is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for CGGG.

MFUS has the higher dividend yield at 1.37%, compared with 0.09% for CGGG.

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for CGGG and 0.30% for MFUS.

MFUS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs 0.36), 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 MFUS

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