PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CGMS vs. COMT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CGMS vs. COMT - 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 GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGMS achieves a 1.63% return, which is significantly lower than COMT's 30.19% return.


CGMS

1D
-0.04%
1M
-0.28%
6M
1.08%
YTD
1.63%
1Y
5.56%
3Y*
7.55%
5Y*
10Y*

COMT

1D
-0.49%
1M
2.53%
6M
26.18%
YTD
30.19%
1Y
33.20%
3Y*
12.71%
5Y*
11.75%
10Y*
8.33%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGMS vs. COMT - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
CGMS
Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF
1.63%7.52%7.24%11.51%2.77%
COMT
iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF
30.19%6.07%5.96%-6.56%-4.09%

Correlation

The correlation between CGMS and COMT is -0.32, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.32

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-0.10

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2022

-0.04

Over the past year, the inverse relationship between CGMS and COMT has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.04 to -0.32, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

CGMS vs. COMT — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGMS
CGMS Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
CGMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGMS Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
CGMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGMS Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
Martin Ratio Rank

COMT
COMT Risk / Return Rank: 5252
Overall Rank
COMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
COMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
COMT Omega Ratio Rank: 5454
Omega Ratio Rank
COMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 4545
Calmar Ratio Rank
COMT Martin Ratio Rank: 4747
Martin Ratio Rank
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. COMT - 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 GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT). 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.


CGMSCOMTDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.06

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.27

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.27

+0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.26

1.90

+0.36

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.99

6.35

+3.64

CGMS vs. COMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGMS Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is comparable to the COMT Sharpe Ratio of 1.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGMS and COMT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

CGMS vs. COMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGMS drawdown since its inception was -4.08%, smaller than the maximum COMT drawdown of -51.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGMS and COMT.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CGMSCOMTDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-4.08%

-51.89%

+47.81%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-2.47%

-17.57%

+15.10%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-4.08%

-17.57%

+13.49%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.00%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.22%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.36%

-11.28%

+10.92%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.66%

-23.95%

+23.29%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.56%

5.24%

-4.68%

Volatility

CGMS vs. COMT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF (CGMS) is 0.89%, while iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT) has a volatility of 5.91%. This indicates that CGMS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than COMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CGMSCOMTDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.89%

5.91%

-5.02%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.83%

19.67%

-16.84%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.46%

21.54%

-18.08%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.09%

21.20%

-16.11%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5.09%

18.85%

-13.76%

CGMS vs. COMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGMS has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than COMT's 0.48% expense ratio.


Dividends

CGMS vs. COMT - Dividend Comparison

CGMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.14%, more than COMT's 5.95% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CGMS
Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF
6.14%6.00%5.91%5.84%0.97%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
COMT
iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF
5.95%7.74%4.90%5.19%29.79%17.79%0.36%2.61%11.65%5.16%0.52%1.44%

Frequently Asked Questions


CGMS and COMT have a correlation of -0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

COMT has higher volatility (5.91%) compared to CGMS (0.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGMS dropped -4.08% vs COMT's -51.89%.

On 3-year performance, COMT leads with 12.71% vs 7.55% for CGMS. On fees, CGMS is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, CGMS has been the lower-risk option at 0.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, COMT has performed better with a 12.71% return vs 7.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CGMS is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for COMT.

CGMS has the higher dividend yield at 6.14%, compared with 5.95% for COMT.

CGMS is categorized as Multisector Bonds, while COMT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for CGMS and 0.48% for COMT.

CGMS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.61 vs 1.55), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CGMS and COMT

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer