DFAS vs. CGMM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

DFAS (Dimensional U.S. Small Cap ETF) and CGMM (Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - DFAS is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Dimensional, while CGMM is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Capital Group. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, DFAS returned 29.19% vs 18.91% for CGMM. Their correlation of 0.93 means they have usually moved in the same direction. DFAS charges 0.26%/yr vs 0.51%/yr for CGMM.

Performance

DFAS vs. CGMM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Dimensional U.S. Small Cap ETF (DFAS) and Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF (CGMM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DFAS achieves a 16.93% return, which is significantly higher than CGMM's 10.85% return.

DFAS

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: -0.61%
• 6M: 10.95%
• YTD: 16.93%
• 1Y: 29.19%
• 3Y*: 13.31%
• 5Y*: 8.65%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.93%

CGMM

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: -2.41%
• 6M: 6.78%
• YTD: 10.85%
• 1Y: 18.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.22%

*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)
CGMM Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF	$22.37M	$23.07M	$30.55M
DFAS Dimensional U.S. Small Cap ETF	$35.83M	$42.77M	$37.37M

DFAS vs. CGMM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
DFAS Dimensional U.S. Small Cap ETF	16.93%	5.67%
CGMM Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF	10.85%	12.15%

Correlation

The correlation between DFAS and CGMM is 0.92, 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.	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2025	0.93

The correlation between DFAS and CGMM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

DFAS vs. CGMM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DFAS	CGMM
Financial Services	19.6%	16.2%
Industrials	19.0%	21.7%
Technology	14.7%	18.7%
Consumer Cyclical	13.1%	12.7%
Healthcare	13.0%	11.7%
Energy	5.9%	2.7%
Basic Materials	4.8%	3.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.2%	5.3%
Utilities	2.7%	3.0%
Communication Services	2.5%	2.4%
Real Estate	0.7%	2.6%

Return for Risk

DFAS vs. CGMM — Risk / Return Rank

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

DFAS

DFAS Risk / Return Rank: 75
DFAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
DFAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
DFAS Omega Ratio Rank: 68
DFAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
DFAS Martin Ratio Rank: 79

CGMM

CGMM Risk / Return Rank: 44
CGMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
CGMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
CGMM Omega Ratio Rank: 38
CGMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
CGMM Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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.

DFAS vs. CGMM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Dimensional U.S. Small Cap ETF (DFAS) and Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF (CGMM). 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.

	DFAS	CGMM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.62	1.03	+0.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.42	1.57	+0.85
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.18	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.88	1.63	+1.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.09	6.14	+3.95

DFAS vs. CGMM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DFAS Sharpe Ratio is 1.62, which is higher than the CGMM Sharpe Ratio of 1.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DFAS and CGMM, 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

DFAS vs. CGMM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DFAS drawdown since its inception was -26.13%, which is greater than CGMM's maximum drawdown of -21.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DFAS and CGMM.

Drawdown Indicators

	DFAS	CGMM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.13%	-21.04%	-5.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.36%	-10.09%	+0.73%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.13%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.13%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.59%	-3.15%	+1.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.08%	-3.08%	-5.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.67%	2.69%	-0.02%

Volatility

DFAS vs. CGMM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Dimensional U.S. Small Cap ETF (DFAS) is 3.36%, while Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF (CGMM) has a volatility of 3.60%. This indicates that DFAS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGMM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DFAS	CGMM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.36%	3.60%	-0.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.54%	11.97%	-0.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.67%	16.13%	+0.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.67%	19.76%	+0.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.66%	19.76%	+0.90%

DFAS vs. CGMM - Expense Ratio Comparison

DFAS has a 0.26% expense ratio, which is lower than CGMM's 0.51% expense ratio.

Dividends

DFAS vs. CGMM - Dividend Comparison

DFAS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.98%, more than CGMM's 0.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CGMM Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF	0.38%	0.40%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
DFAS Dimensional U.S. Small Cap ETF	0.98%	0.99%	0.93%	1.00%	1.03%	2.87%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DFAS and CGMM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, DFAS and CGMM 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, DFAS or CGMM?

CGMM has higher volatility (3.60%) compared to DFAS (3.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DFAS dropped -26.13% vs CGMM's -21.04%.

Which ETF is better, DFAS or CGMM?

On 1-year performance, DFAS leads with 29.19% vs 18.91% for CGMM. On fees, DFAS is cheaper at 0.26% per year. On volatility, DFAS has been the lower-risk option at 3.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DFAS or CGMM?

Over the 1-year period, DFAS has performed better with a 29.19% return vs 18.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DFAS or CGMM?

DFAS is cheaper with a 0.26% expense ratio, compared with 0.51% for CGMM.

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

DFAS has the higher dividend yield at 0.98%, compared with 0.38% for CGMM.

What is the main difference between DFAS and CGMM?

DFAS is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while CGMM is Mid Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Dimensional and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.26% for DFAS and 0.51% for CGMM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DFAS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.62 vs 1.03), 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.