CGNG vs. EEMS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGNG (Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF) and EEMS (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. CGNG is actively managed, while EEMS is passively managed. Over the past year, CGNG returned 33.89% vs 28.89% for EEMS. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGNG charges 0.64%/yr vs 0.73%/yr for EEMS.

Performance

CGNG vs. EEMS - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with CGNG having a 15.66% return and EEMS slightly lower at 15.19%.

CGNG

• 1D: -0.32%
• 1M: 4.77%
• YTD: 15.66%
• 6M: 16.77%
• 1Y: 33.89%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EEMS

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: -0.06%
• YTD: 15.19%
• 6M: 17.20%
• 1Y: 28.89%
• 3Y*: 17.04%
• 5Y*: 7.03%
• 10Y*: 9.25%

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

CGNG vs. EEMS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CGNG Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF	15.66%	29.78%	-0.97%
EEMS iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF	15.19%	19.78%	-2.45%

Correlation

The correlation between CGNG and EEMS is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 28, 2024	0.83

The correlation between CGNG and EEMS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGNG vs. EEMS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGNG	EEMS
Technology	31.4%	22.7%
Financial Services	16.2%	11.1%
Industrials	10.7%	18.9%
Communication Services	10.4%	2.9%
Consumer Cyclical	9.8%	9.6%
Basic Materials	7.5%	9.3%
Consumer Defensive	3.8%	5.2%
Healthcare	3.5%	9.4%
Energy	3.5%	2.4%
Utilities	1.8%	2.7%
Real Estate	1.3%	5.9%

Return for Risk

CGNG vs. EEMS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGNG

CGNG Risk / Return Rank: 56
CGNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
CGNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
CGNG Omega Ratio Rank: 58
CGNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
CGNG Martin Ratio Rank: 59

EEMS

EEMS Risk / Return Rank: 51
EEMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
EEMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
EEMS Omega Ratio Rank: 50
EEMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
EEMS Martin Ratio Rank: 55

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.

CGNG vs. EEMS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF (CGNG) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS). 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.

	CGNG	EEMS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.89	1.68	+0.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.66	2.28	+0.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.31	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.48	2.67	-0.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.47	9.39	+1.08
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGNG vs. EEMS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGNG Sharpe Ratio is 1.89, which is comparable to the EEMS Sharpe Ratio of 1.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGNG and EEMS, 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

	CGNG	EEMS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.89	1.68	+0.21
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.44	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.52	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.26	0.32	+0.94

Drawdowns

CGNG vs. EEMS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGNG drawdown since its inception was -15.90%, smaller than the maximum EEMS drawdown of -48.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGNG and EEMS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGNG	EEMS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.90%	-48.89%	+32.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.75%	-10.87%	-2.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.71%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.07%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-48.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.68%	-1.93%	+0.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.84%	-10.50%	+7.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.25%	3.08%	+0.17%

Volatility

CGNG vs. EEMS - Volatility Comparison

Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF (CGNG) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS) have volatilities of 6.98% and 6.80%, 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

	CGNG	EEMS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.98%	6.80%	+0.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.67%	14.90%	+0.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.05%	17.30%	+0.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.15%	16.06%	+2.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.15%	17.99%	+0.16%

CGNG vs. EEMS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGNG has a 0.64% expense ratio, which is lower than EEMS's 0.73% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGNG vs. EEMS - Dividend Comparison

CGNG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.59%, less than EEMS's 2.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGNG Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF	0.59%	0.68%	0.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EEMS iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF	2.68%	3.09%	2.60%	2.69%	0.89%	3.56%	2.14%	2.64%	3.06%	2.47%	2.51%	2.33%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGNG and EEMS in my portfolio?

CGNG and EEMS have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGNG or EEMS?

CGNG has higher volatility (6.98%) compared to EEMS (6.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGNG dropped -15.90% vs EEMS's -48.89%.

Which ETF is better, CGNG or EEMS?

On 1-year performance, CGNG leads with 33.89% vs 28.89% for EEMS. On fees, CGNG is cheaper at 0.64% per year. On volatility, EEMS has been the lower-risk option at 6.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGNG or EEMS?

Over the 1-year period, CGNG has performed better with a 33.89% return vs 28.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGNG or EEMS?

CGNG is cheaper with a 0.64% expense ratio, compared with 0.73% for EEMS.

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

EEMS has the higher dividend yield at 2.68%, compared with 0.59% for CGNG.

What is the main difference between CGNG and EEMS?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.64% for CGNG and 0.73% for EEMS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGNG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.89 vs 1.68), 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.