CGGO vs. BAI

Last updated Jul 21, 2026

CGGO (Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF) and BAI (iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGGO is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Capital Group, while BAI is a Technology Equities fund actively managed by iShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CGGO returned 22.52% vs 44.38% for BAI. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGGO charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for BAI.

Performance

CGGO vs. BAI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF (CGGO) and iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF (BAI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGGO achieves a 12.61% return, which is significantly lower than BAI's 28.23% return.

CGGO

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: -8.08%
• 6M: 7.76%
• YTD: 12.61%
• 1Y: 22.52%
• 3Y*: 18.07%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.28%

BAI

• 1D: 0.28%
• 1M: -19.74%
• 6M: 22.35%
• YTD: 28.23%
• 1Y: 44.38%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 37.83%

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

CGGO vs. BAI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CGGO Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF	12.61%	21.08%	-3.09%
BAI iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF	28.23%	25.22%	8.89%

Correlation

The correlation between CGGO and BAI is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 22, 2024	0.85

The correlation between CGGO and BAI has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGGO vs. BAI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGGO	BAI
Technology	39.6%	90.5%
Industrials	15.8%	4.8%
Financial Services	10.1%	-
Healthcare	9.0%	0.7%
Consumer Cyclical	8.2%	1.6%
Communication Services	7.6%	3.0%
Consumer Defensive	3.8%	-
Basic Materials	2.6%	-
Energy	1.5%	-
Utilities	0.9%	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

CGGO vs. BAI — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGGO

CGGO Risk / Return Rank: 45
CGGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
CGGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
CGGO Omega Ratio Rank: 43
CGGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
CGGO Martin Ratio Rank: 55

BAI

BAI Risk / Return Rank: 45
BAI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
BAI Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
BAI Omega Ratio Rank: 40
BAI Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
BAI Martin Ratio Rank: 50

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.

CGGO vs. BAI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF (CGGO) and iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF (BAI). 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.

	CGGO	BAI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.14	1.11	+0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.64	1.57	+0.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.21	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.72	2.08	-0.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.95	6.22	+0.73

CGGO vs. BAI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGGO Sharpe Ratio is 1.14, which is comparable to the BAI Sharpe Ratio of 1.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGGO and BAI, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

CGGO vs. BAI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGGO drawdown since its inception was -24.90%, smaller than the maximum BAI drawdown of -34.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGGO and BAI.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGGO	BAI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.90%	-34.09%	+9.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.15%	-21.48%	+8.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.93%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.38%	-21.26%	+12.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.44%	-7.11%	+1.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.25%	7.15%	-3.90%

Volatility

CGGO vs. BAI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF (CGGO) is 8.09%, while iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF (BAI) has a volatility of 18.75%. This indicates that CGGO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BAI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGGO	BAI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.09%	18.75%	-10.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.76%	34.83%	-17.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.81%	40.28%	-20.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.08%	38.51%	-19.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.08%	38.51%	-19.43%

CGGO vs. BAI - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGGO has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than BAI's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGGO vs. BAI - Dividend Comparison

CGGO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.02%, less than BAI's 1.39% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BAI iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF	1.39%	1.80%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CGGO Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF	1.02%	2.03%	1.10%	0.76%	0.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGGO and BAI in my portfolio?

CGGO and BAI have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGGO or BAI?

BAI has higher volatility (18.75%) compared to CGGO (8.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGGO dropped -24.90% vs BAI's -34.09%.

Which ETF is better, CGGO or BAI?

On 1-year performance, BAI leads with 44.38% vs 22.52% for CGGO. On fees, CGGO is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, CGGO has been the lower-risk option at 8.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGGO or BAI?

Over the 1-year period, BAI has performed better with a 44.38% return vs 22.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGGO or BAI?

CGGO is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for BAI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGGO or BAI?

BAI has the higher dividend yield at 1.39%, compared with 1.02% for CGGO.

What is the main difference between CGGO and BAI?

CGGO is categorized as Global Equities, while BAI is Technology Equities. They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for CGGO and 0.55% for BAI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGGO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.14 vs 1.11), 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.