CGMS vs. BINC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGMS (Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF) and BINC (iShares Flexible Income Active ETF) are both Multisector Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CGMS returned 7.92%/yr vs 7.02%/yr for BINC. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGMS charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for BINC.

Performance

CGMS vs. BINC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF (CGMS) and iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGMS achieves a 1.54% return, which is significantly higher than BINC's 0.90% return.

CGMS

• 1D: -0.25%
• 1M: 0.56%
• YTD: 1.54%
• 6M: 1.68%
• 1Y: 7.10%
• 3Y*: 7.92%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BINC

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 0.54%
• YTD: 0.90%
• 6M: 1.22%
• 1Y: 5.80%
• 3Y*: 7.02%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CGMS vs. BINC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CGMS Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF	1.54%	7.52%	7.24%	8.09%
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF	0.90%	7.57%	5.76%	7.08%

Correlation

The correlation between CGMS and BINC 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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 24, 2023	0.82

The correlation between CGMS and BINC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGMS vs. BINC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGMS	BINC
Real Estate	91.8%	-0.0%
Technology	8.2%	-
Basic Materials	-	0.0%
Communication Services	-	-0.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	0.0%
Financial Services	-	0.1%
Healthcare	-	-0.0%
Industrials	-	0.0%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CGMS vs. BINC — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGMS

CGMS Risk / Return Rank: 63
CGMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
CGMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
CGMS Omega Ratio Rank: 64
CGMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
CGMS Martin Ratio Rank: 69

BINC

BINC Risk / Return Rank: 67
BINC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
BINC Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
BINC Omega Ratio Rank: 83
BINC Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
BINC 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.

CGMS vs. BINC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF (CGMS) and iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC). 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.

	CGMS	BINC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.08	2.56	-0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.14	3.71	-0.58
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.51	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.88	2.17	+0.72
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.89	8.53	+4.35
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGMS vs. BINC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGMS Sharpe Ratio is 2.08, which is comparable to the BINC Sharpe Ratio of 2.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGMS and BINC, 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

	CGMS	BINC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.08	2.56	-0.48
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.66	2.36	-0.70

Drawdowns

CGMS vs. BINC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGMS drawdown since its inception was -4.08%, which is greater than BINC's maximum drawdown of -2.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGMS and BINC.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGMS	BINC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.08%	-2.69%	-1.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.47%	-2.69%	+0.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.08%	-2.69%	-1.39%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.25%	-0.49%	+0.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.67%	-0.36%	-0.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.55%	0.68%	-0.13%

Volatility

CGMS vs. BINC - Volatility Comparison

Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF (CGMS) has a higher volatility of 1.15% compared to iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) at 0.75%. This indicates that CGMS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BINC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGMS	BINC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.15%	0.75%	+0.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.66%	1.84%	+0.82%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.43%	2.28%	+1.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.13%	3.00%	+2.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.13%	3.00%	+2.13%

CGMS vs. BINC - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGMS has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than BINC's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGMS vs. BINC - Dividend Comparison

CGMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.09%, more than BINC's 5.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF	5.86%	5.86%	6.14%	3.13%	0.00%
CGMS Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF	6.09%	6.00%	5.91%	5.84%	0.97%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGMS and BINC in my portfolio?

CGMS and BINC 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, CGMS or BINC?

CGMS has higher volatility (1.15%) compared to BINC (0.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGMS dropped -4.08% vs BINC's -2.69%.

Which ETF is better, CGMS or BINC?

On 3-year performance, CGMS leads with 7.92% vs 7.02% for BINC. On fees, CGMS is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, BINC has been the lower-risk option at 0.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGMS or BINC?

Over the 3-year period, CGMS has performed better with a 7.92% return vs 7.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGMS or BINC?

CGMS is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for BINC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGMS or BINC?

CGMS has the higher dividend yield at 6.09%, compared with 5.86% for BINC.

What is the main difference between CGMS and BINC?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for CGMS and 0.40% for BINC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BINC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.56 vs 2.08), 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.