CGIC vs. EFAS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGIC (Capital Group International Core Equity ETF) and EFAS (Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. CGIC is actively managed, while EFAS is passively managed. Over the past year, CGIC returned 30.79% vs 28.68% for EFAS. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGIC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for EFAS.

Performance

CGIC vs. EFAS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group International Core Equity ETF (CGIC) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with CGIC having a 12.85% return and EFAS slightly higher at 12.96%.

CGIC

• 1D: -1.04%
• 1M: 5.13%
• YTD: 12.85%
• 6M: 15.39%
• 1Y: 30.79%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EFAS

• 1D: -0.58%
• 1M: -0.80%
• YTD: 12.96%
• 6M: 17.29%
• 1Y: 28.68%
• 3Y*: 24.47%
• 5Y*: 12.04%
• 10Y*: —

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

CGIC vs. EFAS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CGIC Capital Group International Core Equity ETF	12.85%	37.53%	-2.81%
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	12.96%	46.83%	2.46%

Correlation

The correlation between CGIC and EFAS is 0.69, 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	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 28, 2024	0.67

The correlation between CGIC and EFAS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGIC vs. EFAS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGIC	EFAS
Financial Services	20.2%	30.1%
Technology	16.7%	0.1%
Industrials	13.9%	9.9%
Basic Materials	8.8%	1.8%
Consumer Defensive	8.1%	8.1%
Consumer Cyclical	7.4%	1.9%
Communication Services	7.3%	8.6%
Energy	6.2%	13.7%
Healthcare	5.6%	0.1%
Utilities	4.1%	14.4%
Real Estate	1.8%	11.3%

Return for Risk

CGIC vs. EFAS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGIC

CGIC Risk / Return Rank: 58
CGIC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
CGIC Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
CGIC Omega Ratio Rank: 60
CGIC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
CGIC Martin Ratio Rank: 59

EFAS

EFAS Risk / Return Rank: 81
EFAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
EFAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
EFAS Omega Ratio Rank: 78
EFAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
EFAS Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

CGIC vs. EFAS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group International Core Equity ETF (CGIC) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). 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.

	CGIC	EFAS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.06	2.73	-0.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.83	3.83	-1.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.47	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.74	5.44	-2.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.54	14.48	-3.94
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGIC vs. EFAS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGIC Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is comparable to the EFAS Sharpe Ratio of 2.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGIC and EFAS, 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

	CGIC	EFAS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.06	2.73	-0.66
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.78	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.48	0.56	+0.92

Drawdowns

CGIC vs. EFAS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGIC drawdown since its inception was -13.10%, smaller than the maximum EFAS drawdown of -44.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGIC and EFAS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGIC	EFAS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.10%	-44.38%	+31.28%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.30%	-5.30%	-6.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.84%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-28.81%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.04%	-3.01%	+1.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.54%	-7.08%	+4.54%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.93%	1.99%	+0.94%

Volatility

CGIC vs. EFAS - Volatility Comparison

Capital Group International Core Equity ETF (CGIC) has a higher volatility of 5.82% compared to Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) at 2.96%. This indicates that CGIC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EFAS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGIC	EFAS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.82%	2.96%	+2.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.82%	8.20%	+4.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.01%	10.60%	+4.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.14%	15.59%	+0.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.14%	18.33%	-2.19%

CGIC vs. EFAS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGIC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is lower than EFAS's 0.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGIC vs. EFAS - Dividend Comparison

CGIC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.32%, less than EFAS's 5.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
CGIC Capital Group International Core Equity ETF	1.32%	1.60%	0.68%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	5.05%	4.83%	6.76%	6.33%	7.28%	5.19%	4.34%	5.75%	6.63%	6.15%	0.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGIC and EFAS in my portfolio?

CGIC and EFAS have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGIC or EFAS?

CGIC has higher volatility (5.82%) compared to EFAS (2.96%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGIC dropped -13.10% vs EFAS's -44.38%.

Which ETF is better, CGIC or EFAS?

On 1-year performance, CGIC leads with 30.79% vs 28.68% for EFAS. On fees, CGIC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, EFAS has been the lower-risk option at 2.96%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGIC or EFAS?

Over the 1-year period, CGIC has performed better with a 30.79% return vs 28.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGIC or EFAS?

CGIC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for EFAS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGIC or EFAS?

EFAS has the higher dividend yield at 5.05%, compared with 1.32% for CGIC.

What is the main difference between CGIC and EFAS?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for CGIC and 0.56% for EFAS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFAS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 vs 2.06), 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.