CGNG vs. BBEM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

CGNG (Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF) and BBEM (JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. CGNG is actively managed, while BBEM is passively managed. Over the past year, CGNG returned 26.76% vs 34.07% for BBEM. Their correlation of 0.91 means they have usually moved in the same direction. CGNG charges 0.64%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for BBEM.

Performance

CGNG vs. BBEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF (CGNG) and JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGNG achieves a 11.71% return, which is significantly lower than BBEM's 17.16% return.

CGNG

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: -1.33%
• 6M: 5.94%
• YTD: 11.71%
• 1Y: 26.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.76%

BBEM

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: -2.28%
• 6M: 9.39%
• YTD: 17.16%
• 1Y: 34.07%
• 3Y*: 17.55%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.69%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BBEM JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$4.42M	$2.79M	$2.95M
CGNG Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF	$26.72M	$26.11M	$26.33M

CGNG vs. BBEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CGNG Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF	11.71%	29.78%	-1.17%
BBEM JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	17.16%	32.43%	-0.75%

Correlation

The correlation between CGNG and BBEM is 0.94, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2024	0.91

The correlation between CGNG and BBEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGNG vs. BBEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGNG	BBEM
Technology	37.8%	25.0%
Financial Services	15.3%	12.2%
Industrials	10.4%	3.2%
Communication Services	9.4%	4.6%
Consumer Cyclical	8.0%	5.9%
Basic Materials	7.1%	3.5%
Healthcare	4.0%	1.3%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	1.6%
Energy	2.2%	1.8%
Utilities	1.6%	1.5%
Real Estate	1.1%	0.6%

Return for Risk

CGNG vs. BBEM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CGNG

CGNG Risk / Return Rank: 51
CGNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
CGNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
CGNG Omega Ratio Rank: 51
CGNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
CGNG Martin Ratio Rank: 56

BBEM

BBEM Risk / Return Rank: 62
BBEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
BBEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
BBEM Omega Ratio Rank: 62
BBEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
BBEM Martin Ratio Rank: 63

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CGNG vs. BBEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF (CGNG) and JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM). 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.

	CGNG	BBEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.19	1.40	-0.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.72	1.94	-0.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.27	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.88	2.50	-0.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.68	7.64	-0.96

CGNG vs. BBEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGNG Sharpe Ratio is 1.19, which is comparable to the BBEM Sharpe Ratio of 1.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGNG and BBEM, 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

CGNG vs. BBEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGNG drawdown since its inception was -15.90%, smaller than the maximum BBEM drawdown of -17.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGNG and BBEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGNG	BBEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.90%	-17.42%	+1.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.75%	-13.37%	-0.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-17.42%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.40%	-9.54%	+3.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.98%	-3.84%	+0.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.85%	4.37%	-0.52%

Volatility

CGNG vs. BBEM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF (CGNG) is 7.73%, while JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM) has a volatility of 8.89%. This indicates that CGNG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BBEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGNG	BBEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.73%	8.89%	-1.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.66%	21.92%	-2.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.64%	23.91%	-2.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.55%	18.86%	+0.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.55%	18.86%	+0.69%

CGNG vs. BBEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGNG has a 0.64% expense ratio, which is higher than BBEM's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGNG vs. BBEM - Dividend Comparison

CGNG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.61%, less than BBEM's 4.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BBEM JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	4.95%	5.86%	2.73%	1.94%
CGNG Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF	0.61%	0.68%	0.27%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGNG and BBEM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, CGNG and BBEM 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, CGNG or BBEM?

BBEM has higher volatility (8.89%) compared to CGNG (7.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGNG dropped -15.90% vs BBEM's -17.42%.

Which ETF is better, CGNG or BBEM?

On 1-year performance, BBEM leads with 34.07% vs 26.76% for CGNG. On fees, BBEM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, CGNG has been the lower-risk option at 7.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGNG or BBEM?

Over the 1-year period, BBEM has performed better with a 34.07% return vs 26.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGNG or BBEM?

BBEM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.64% for CGNG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGNG or BBEM?

BBEM has the higher dividend yield at 4.95%, compared with 0.61% for CGNG.

What is the main difference between CGNG and BBEM?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.64% for CGNG and 0.15% for BBEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BBEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.40 vs 1.19), 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.