ESML vs. CAFG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ESML (iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA Small-Cap ETF) and CAFG (Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds - ESML tracks the MSCI USA Small Cap Extended ESG Focus Index while CAFG tracks the Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ESML returned 17.87%/yr vs 15.08%/yr for CAFG. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ESML charges 0.17%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for CAFG.

Performance

ESML vs. CAFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA Small-Cap ETF (ESML) and Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ESML achieves a 18.00% return, which is significantly lower than CAFG's 27.99% return.

ESML

• 1D: -1.21%
• 1M: 3.69%
• YTD: 18.00%
• 6M: 15.71%
• 1Y: 34.55%
• 3Y*: 17.87%
• 5Y*: 7.24%
• 10Y*: —

CAFG

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: 2.98%
• YTD: 27.99%
• 6M: 25.79%
• 1Y: 34.79%
• 3Y*: 15.08%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ESML vs. CAFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ESML iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA Small-Cap ETF	18.00%	10.62%	12.01%	14.60%
CAFG Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	27.99%	0.17%	6.95%	21.26%

Correlation

The correlation between ESML and CAFG is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2023	0.89

The correlation between ESML and CAFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

ESML vs. CAFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ESML	CAFG
Technology	20.8%	35.1%
Industrials	17.8%	15.0%
Financial Services	13.8%	-
Healthcare	12.8%	24.5%
Consumer Cyclical	10.7%	7.2%
Real Estate	6.5%	-
Energy	4.8%	8.9%
Basic Materials	4.0%	2.4%
Consumer Defensive	3.4%	2.7%
Utilities	2.8%	1.1%
Communication Services	2.5%	2.9%

Return for Risk

ESML vs. CAFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

ESML

ESML Risk / Return Rank: 70
ESML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
ESML Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
ESML Omega Ratio Rank: 60
ESML Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
ESML Martin Ratio Rank: 78

CAFG

CAFG Risk / Return Rank: 71
CAFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
CAFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
CAFG Omega Ratio Rank: 60
CAFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
CAFG Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

ESML vs. CAFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA Small-Cap ETF (ESML) and Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG). 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.

	ESML	CAFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.03	1.99	+0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.88	2.82	+0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.34	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.84	4.30	-0.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.09	14.15	-0.06

ESML vs. CAFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ESML Sharpe Ratio is 2.03, which is comparable to the CAFG Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ESML and CAFG, 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

ESML vs. CAFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ESML drawdown since its inception was -41.97%, which is greater than CAFG's maximum drawdown of -23.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESML and CAFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	ESML	CAFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.97%	-23.66%	-18.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.04%	-8.13%	-0.91%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.68%	-23.66%	-3.02%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.61%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.21%	-0.49%	-0.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.91%	-5.45%	-3.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.46%	2.46%	0.00%

Volatility

ESML vs. CAFG - Volatility Comparison

iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA Small-Cap ETF (ESML) has a higher volatility of 5.52% compared to Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG) at 5.07%. This indicates that ESML's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ESML	CAFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.52%	5.07%	+0.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.38%	13.16%	-0.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.15%	17.61%	-0.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.29%	19.54%	+1.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.39%	19.54%	+3.85%

ESML vs. CAFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

ESML has a 0.17% expense ratio, which is lower than CAFG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

ESML vs. CAFG - Dividend Comparison

ESML's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.92%, more than CAFG's 0.31% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CAFG Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.31%	0.35%	0.36%	0.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ESML iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA Small-Cap ETF	0.92%	1.08%	1.22%	1.31%	1.46%	0.94%	0.99%	1.10%	1.07%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ESML and CAFG in my portfolio?

ESML and CAFG have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ESML or CAFG?

ESML has higher volatility (5.52%) compared to CAFG (5.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ESML dropped -41.97% vs CAFG's -23.66%.

Which ETF is better, ESML or CAFG?

On 3-year performance, ESML leads with 17.87% vs 15.08% for CAFG. On fees, ESML is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, CAFG has been the lower-risk option at 5.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ESML or CAFG?

Over the 3-year period, ESML has performed better with a 17.87% return vs 15.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ESML or CAFG?

ESML is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for CAFG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ESML or CAFG?

ESML has the higher dividend yield at 0.92%, compared with 0.31% for CAFG.

What is the main difference between ESML and CAFG?

ESML tracks MSCI USA Small Cap Extended ESG Focus Index, while CAFG tracks Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index - Benchmark TR Gross. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.17% for ESML and 0.59% for CAFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ESML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 1.99), 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.