CGMM vs. LSAF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGMM (Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF) and LSAF (LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. CGMM is actively managed, while LSAF is passively managed. Over the past year, CGMM returned 23.39% vs 23.97% for LSAF. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGMM charges 0.51%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for LSAF.

Performance

CGMM vs. LSAF - 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 LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGMM achieves a 10.58% return, which is significantly lower than LSAF's 12.50% return.

CGMM

• 1D: -0.62%
• 1M: 1.79%
• YTD: 10.58%
• 6M: 11.78%
• 1Y: 23.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LSAF

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 4.14%
• YTD: 12.50%
• 6M: 13.20%
• 1Y: 23.97%
• 3Y*: 19.85%
• 5Y*: 9.83%
• 10Y*: —

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

CGMM vs. LSAF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CGMM Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF	10.58%	11.46%
LSAF LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF	12.50%	7.24%

Correlation

The correlation between CGMM and LSAF is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 17, 2025	0.90

The correlation between CGMM and LSAF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGMM vs. LSAF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGMM	LSAF
Industrials	21.7%	15.4%
Technology	17.6%	16.4%
Financial Services	15.4%	17.2%
Consumer Cyclical	14.7%	22.5%
Healthcare	9.0%	9.3%
Consumer Defensive	5.8%	7.3%
Communication Services	3.5%	1.0%
Energy	3.4%	5.6%
Utilities	3.1%	0.9%
Basic Materials	3.0%	3.1%
Real Estate	2.8%	2.2%

Return for Risk

CGMM vs. LSAF — 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: 42
CGMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
CGMM Omega Ratio Rank: 39
CGMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
CGMM Martin Ratio Rank: 52

LSAF

LSAF Risk / Return Rank: 57
LSAF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
LSAF Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
LSAF Omega Ratio Rank: 46
LSAF Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
LSAF Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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. LSAF - 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 LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF). 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.

	CGMM	LSAF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.49	1.67	-0.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.18	2.48	-0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.29	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.33	3.66	-1.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.94	11.96	-3.03
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGMM vs. LSAF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGMM Sharpe Ratio is 1.49, which is comparable to the LSAF Sharpe Ratio of 1.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGMM and LSAF, 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

	CGMM	LSAF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.49	1.67	-0.18
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.54	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.81	0.47	+0.34

Drawdowns

CGMM vs. LSAF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGMM drawdown since its inception was -21.04%, smaller than the maximum LSAF drawdown of -41.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGMM and LSAF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGMM	LSAF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.04%	-41.67%	+20.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.09%	-6.58%	-3.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.26%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.94%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.62%	-0.12%	-0.50%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.25%	-6.33%	+3.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.62%	2.01%	+0.61%

Volatility

CGMM vs. LSAF - Volatility Comparison

Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF (CGMM) and LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF) have volatilities of 3.73% and 3.74%, 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	LSAF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.73%	3.74%	-0.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.79%	10.27%	+1.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.80%	14.42%	+1.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.29%	18.39%	+1.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.29%	21.88%	-1.59%

CGMM vs. LSAF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGMM has a 0.51% expense ratio, which is lower than LSAF's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGMM vs. LSAF - Dividend Comparison

CGMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.36%, less than LSAF's 0.61% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
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%
LSAF LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF	0.61%	0.69%	0.42%	0.84%	0.96%	0.37%	0.53%	0.71%	0.20%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGMM and LSAF in my portfolio?

CGMM and LSAF have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGMM or LSAF?

LSAF has higher volatility (3.74%) compared to CGMM (3.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGMM dropped -21.04% vs LSAF's -41.67%.

Which ETF is better, CGMM or LSAF?

On 1-year performance, LSAF leads with 23.97% vs 23.39% for CGMM. On fees, CGMM is cheaper at 0.51% 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 LSAF?

Over the 1-year period, LSAF has performed better with a 23.97% return vs 23.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGMM or LSAF?

CGMM is cheaper with a 0.51% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LSAF.

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

LSAF has the higher dividend yield at 0.61%, compared with 0.36% for CGMM.

What is the main difference between CGMM and LSAF?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and Redwood. Their fees differ too: 0.51% for CGMM and 0.75% for LSAF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LSAF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.67 vs 1.49), 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.