EEM vs. CGBL

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

EEM (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF) and CGBL (Capital Group Core Balanced ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EEM is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Index (Net), while CGBL is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Capital Group. EEM is passively managed, while CGBL is actively managed. Over the past year, EEM returned 43.51% vs 16.11% for CGBL. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EEM charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CGBL.

Performance

EEM vs. CGBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) and Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEM achieves a 20.18% return, which is significantly higher than CGBL's 5.41% return.

EEM

• 1D: 1.80%
• 1M: -3.22%
• YTD: 20.18%
• 6M: 22.10%
• 1Y: 43.51%
• 3Y*: 20.79%
• 5Y*: 5.98%
• 10Y*: 9.37%

CGBL

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: -0.56%
• YTD: 5.41%
• 6M: 6.40%
• 1Y: 16.11%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EEM vs. CGBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF	20.18%	33.98%	6.49%	8.04%
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	5.41%	15.33%	16.64%	9.80%

Correlation

The correlation between EEM and CGBL is 0.75, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2023	0.68

The correlation between EEM and CGBL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

EEM vs. CGBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EEM	CGBL
Technology	43.6%	29.9%
Financial Services	17.5%	11.8%
Consumer Cyclical	8.1%	8.7%
Industrials	6.2%	16.6%
Basic Materials	6.1%	7.2%
Communication Services	5.7%	8.4%
Energy	3.3%	2.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.7%	4.2%
Healthcare	2.5%	8.9%
Utilities	2.0%	2.5%
Real Estate	0.9%	0.0%

Return for Risk

EEM vs. CGBL — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEM

EEM Risk / Return Rank: 70
EEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
EEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
EEM Omega Ratio Rank: 73
EEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
EEM Martin Ratio Rank: 72

CGBL

CGBL Risk / Return Rank: 52
CGBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
CGBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
CGBL Omega Ratio Rank: 54
CGBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
CGBL Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

EEM vs. CGBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) and Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL). 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.

	EEM	CGBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.07	1.64	+0.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.66	2.34	+0.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.30	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.23	2.05	+1.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.20	9.04	+3.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EEM vs. CGBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEM Sharpe Ratio is 2.07, which is comparable to the CGBL Sharpe Ratio of 1.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEM and CGBL, 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

	EEM	CGBL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.07	1.64	+0.43
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.31	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.46	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.37	1.62	-1.25

Drawdowns

EEM vs. CGBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEM drawdown since its inception was -66.43%, which is greater than CGBL's maximum drawdown of -11.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEM and CGBL.

Drawdown Indicators

	EEM	CGBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-66.43%	-11.66%	-54.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.52%	-7.88%	-5.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.29%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.49%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.82%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.13%	-2.50%	-4.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.01%	-1.29%	-14.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.58%	1.79%	+1.79%

Volatility

EEM vs. CGBL - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) has a higher volatility of 10.60% compared to Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) at 3.53%. This indicates that EEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EEM	CGBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.60%	3.53%	+7.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.87%	8.17%	+10.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.19%	9.88%	+11.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.16%	11.09%	+8.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.62%	11.09%	+9.53%

EEM vs. CGBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEM has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than CGBL's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

EEM vs. CGBL - Dividend Comparison

EEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.85%, less than CGBL's 1.89% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	1.89%	1.98%	1.92%	0.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF	1.85%	2.22%	2.43%	2.63%	2.50%	1.99%	1.45%	2.76%	2.24%	1.89%	1.89%	2.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EEM and CGBL in my portfolio?

EEM and CGBL have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EEM or CGBL?

EEM has higher volatility (10.60%) compared to CGBL (3.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEM dropped -66.43% vs CGBL's -11.66%.

Which ETF is better, EEM or CGBL?

On 1-year performance, EEM leads with 43.51% vs 16.11% for CGBL. On fees, CGBL is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, CGBL has been the lower-risk option at 3.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EEM or CGBL?

Over the 1-year period, EEM has performed better with a 43.51% return vs 16.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EEM or CGBL?

CGBL is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for EEM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EEM or CGBL?

CGBL has the higher dividend yield at 1.89%, compared with 1.85% for EEM.

What is the main difference between EEM and CGBL?

EEM is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while CGBL is Diversified Portfolio. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for EEM and 0.33% for CGBL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs 1.64), 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.