CGMM vs. IJH

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CGMM (Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF) and IJH (iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. CGMM is actively managed, while IJH is passively managed. Over the past year, CGMM returned 22.70% vs 25.12% for IJH. With a 0.95 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. CGMM charges 0.51%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for IJH.

Performance

CGMM vs. IJH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF (CGMM) and iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF (IJH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGMM achieves a 11.23% return, which is significantly lower than IJH's 14.64% return.

CGMM

• 1D: -0.96%
• 1M: 1.62%
• YTD: 11.23%
• 6M: 9.09%
• 1Y: 22.70%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IJH

• 1D: -1.01%
• 1M: 2.70%
• YTD: 14.64%
• 6M: 12.56%
• 1Y: 25.12%
• 3Y*: 16.11%
• 5Y*: 8.47%
• 10Y*: 11.63%

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

CGMM vs. IJH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CGMM Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF	11.23%	12.15%
IJH iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF	14.64%	4.70%

Correlation

The correlation between CGMM and IJH is 0.95, 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	0.95
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2025	0.95

The correlation between CGMM and IJH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGMM vs. IJH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGMM	IJH
Industrials	21.5%	25.9%
Technology	19.9%	16.6%
Financial Services	16.1%	13.5%
Consumer Cyclical	13.8%	9.2%
Healthcare	9.7%	8.7%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.2%
Energy	3.1%	5.3%
Utilities	3.1%	3.0%
Communication Services	2.8%	1.0%
Real Estate	2.6%	7.5%
Basic Materials	2.6%	4.9%

Return for Risk

CGMM vs. IJH — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGMM

CGMM Risk / Return Rank: 45
CGMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
CGMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
CGMM Omega Ratio Rank: 39
CGMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
CGMM Martin Ratio Rank: 53

IJH

IJH Risk / Return Rank: 52
IJH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
IJH Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
IJH Omega Ratio Rank: 45
IJH Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
IJH Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

CGMM vs. IJH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF (CGMM) and iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF (IJH). 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.

	CGMM	IJH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.41	1.59	-0.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.06	2.33	-0.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.28	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.26	2.86	-0.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.62	10.44	-1.82

CGMM vs. IJH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGMM Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is comparable to the IJH Sharpe Ratio of 1.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGMM and IJH, 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

CGMM vs. IJH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGMM drawdown since its inception was -21.04%, smaller than the maximum IJH drawdown of -55.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGMM and IJH.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGMM	IJH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.04%	-55.07%	+34.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.09%	-8.83%	-1.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-24.10%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.10%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-42.18%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.96%	-1.13%	+0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.17%	-7.55%	+4.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.64%	2.41%	+0.23%

Volatility

CGMM vs. IJH - Volatility Comparison

Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF (CGMM) and iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF (IJH) have volatilities of 4.69% and 4.75%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGMM	IJH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.69%	4.75%	-0.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.21%	11.75%	+0.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.18%	15.88%	+0.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.23%	19.76%	+0.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.23%	21.17%	-0.94%

CGMM vs. IJH - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGMM has a 0.51% expense ratio, which is higher than IJH's 0.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGMM vs. IJH - Dividend Comparison

CGMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.36%, less than IJH's 1.18% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGMM Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF	0.36%	0.40%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IJH iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF	1.18%	1.36%	1.33%	1.46%	1.68%	1.18%	1.28%	1.63%	1.72%	1.19%	1.60%	1.56%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGMM and IJH in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, CGMM and IJH move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, CGMM or IJH?

IJH has higher volatility (4.75%) compared to CGMM (4.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGMM dropped -21.04% vs IJH's -55.07%.

Which ETF is better, CGMM or IJH?

On 1-year performance, IJH leads with 25.12% vs 22.70% for CGMM. On fees, IJH is cheaper at 0.05% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGMM or IJH?

Over the 1-year period, IJH has performed better with a 25.12% return vs 22.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGMM or IJH?

IJH is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.51% for CGMM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGMM or IJH?

IJH has the higher dividend yield at 1.18%, compared with 0.36% for CGMM.

What is the main difference between CGMM and IJH?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.51% for CGMM and 0.05% for IJH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IJH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.59 vs 1.41), 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.