CGGO vs. WLDR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGGO (Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF) and WLDR (Affinity World Leaders Equity ETF) are both Global Equities funds. CGGO is actively managed, while WLDR is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CGGO returned 21.81%/yr vs 32.72%/yr for WLDR. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGGO charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.67%/yr for WLDR.

Performance

CGGO vs. WLDR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF (CGGO) and Affinity World Leaders Equity ETF (WLDR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGGO achieves a 19.37% return, which is significantly lower than WLDR's 29.55% return.

CGGO

• 1D: -0.82%
• 1M: 9.97%
• YTD: 19.37%
• 6M: 20.83%
• 1Y: 37.51%
• 3Y*: 21.81%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

WLDR

• 1D: -1.18%
• 1M: 11.85%
• YTD: 29.55%
• 6M: 34.62%
• 1Y: 57.12%
• 3Y*: 32.72%
• 5Y*: 18.09%
• 10Y*: —

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

CGGO vs. WLDR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CGGO Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF	19.37%	21.08%	14.80%	23.43%	-13.12%
WLDR Affinity World Leaders Equity ETF	29.55%	31.24%	22.74%	18.93%	-5.03%

Correlation

The correlation between CGGO and WLDR is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2022	0.80

The correlation between CGGO and WLDR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGGO vs. WLDR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGGO	WLDR
Technology	37.3%	29.9%
Industrials	14.0%	8.6%
Financial Services	10.7%	13.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.2%	6.2%
Communication Services	8.1%	10.9%
Healthcare	5.4%	9.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	9.1%
Basic Materials	4.4%	3.5%
Energy	1.4%	4.7%
Utilities	1.3%	2.7%
Real Estate	-	1.9%

Return for Risk

CGGO vs. WLDR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGGO

CGGO Risk / Return Rank: 65
CGGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
CGGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
CGGO Omega Ratio Rank: 66
CGGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
CGGO Martin Ratio Rank: 69

WLDR

WLDR Risk / Return Rank: 94
WLDR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
WLDR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
WLDR Omega Ratio Rank: 93
WLDR Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
WLDR Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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. WLDR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF (CGGO) and Affinity World Leaders Equity ETF (WLDR). 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.

	CGGO	WLDR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.25	3.83	-1.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.08	5.08	-2.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.65	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.87	6.48	-3.61
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.04	26.24	-13.20
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGGO vs. WLDR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGGO Sharpe Ratio is 2.25, which is lower than the WLDR Sharpe Ratio of 3.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGGO and WLDR, 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

	CGGO	WLDR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.25	3.83	-1.58
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.06	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.78	0.60	+0.19

Drawdowns

CGGO vs. WLDR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGGO drawdown since its inception was -24.90%, smaller than the maximum WLDR drawdown of -44.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGGO and WLDR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGGO	WLDR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.90%	-44.69%	+19.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.15%	-8.86%	-4.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.93%	-20.30%	+2.37%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-23.77%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.82%	-1.46%	+0.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.50%	-8.63%	+3.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.88%	2.18%	+0.70%

Volatility

CGGO vs. WLDR - Volatility Comparison

Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF (CGGO) has a higher volatility of 6.68% compared to Affinity World Leaders Equity ETF (WLDR) at 5.63%. This indicates that CGGO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than WLDR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGGO	WLDR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.68%	5.63%	+1.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.40%	12.11%	+2.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.77%	15.00%	+1.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.56%	17.22%	+1.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.56%	20.94%	-2.38%

CGGO vs. WLDR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGGO has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than WLDR's 0.67% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGGO vs. WLDR - Dividend Comparison

CGGO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.70%, less than WLDR's 7.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CGGO Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF	1.70%	2.03%	1.10%	0.76%	0.59%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
WLDR Affinity World Leaders Equity ETF	7.05%	9.01%	13.99%	2.28%	2.10%	7.55%	1.80%	2.48%	2.82%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGGO and WLDR in my portfolio?

CGGO and WLDR have a correlation of 0.74, 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 WLDR?

CGGO has higher volatility (6.68%) compared to WLDR (5.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGGO dropped -24.90% vs WLDR's -44.69%.

Which ETF is better, CGGO or WLDR?

On 3-year performance, WLDR leads with 32.72% vs 21.81% for CGGO. On fees, CGGO is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, WLDR has been the lower-risk option at 5.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGGO or WLDR?

Over the 3-year period, WLDR has performed better with a 32.72% return vs 21.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGGO or WLDR?

CGGO is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.67% for WLDR.

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

WLDR has the higher dividend yield at 7.05%, compared with 1.70% for CGGO.

What is the main difference between CGGO and WLDR?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and Regents Park Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for CGGO and 0.67% for WLDR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WLDR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.83 vs 2.25), 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.