PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GHMS vs. CGMS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GHMS vs. CGMS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF (GHMS) and Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF (CGMS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period


GHMS

1D
0.00%
1M
0.00%
YTD
0.00%
6M
0.00%
1Y
2.58%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

CGMS

1D
0.04%
1M
0.52%
YTD
1.80%
6M
2.08%
1Y
7.45%
3Y*
8.01%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GHMS vs. CGMS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
GHMS
Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF
0.00%5.52%2.30%3.77%
CGMS
Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF
1.80%7.52%7.24%5.47%

Correlation

The correlation between GHMS and CGMS is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.45

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2023

0.26

The correlation between GHMS and CGMS shifts across timeframes, from 0.26 (all time) to 0.45 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

GHMS vs. CGMS — Risk / Return Rank

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

GHMS
GHMS Risk / Return Rank: 1919
Overall Rank
GHMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2020
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GHMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 2020
Sortino Ratio Rank
GHMS Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
GHMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 1616
Calmar Ratio Rank
GHMS Martin Ratio Rank: 1616
Martin Ratio Rank

CGMS
CGMS Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
CGMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGMS Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
CGMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 5959
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGMS Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

GHMS vs. CGMS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF (GHMS) and Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF (CGMS). 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.


GHMSCGMSDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

0.66

2.19

-1.53

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.05

3.31

-2.26

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.16

1.42

-0.26

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

0.65

2.93

-2.28

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

1.70

13.15

-11.45

GHMS vs. CGMS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GHMS Sharpe Ratio is 0.66, which is lower than the CGMS Sharpe Ratio of 2.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GHMS and CGMS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GHMSCGMSDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.66

2.19

-1.53

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.94

1.68

-0.74

Drawdowns

GHMS vs. CGMS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GHMS drawdown since its inception was -4.73%, which is greater than CGMS's maximum drawdown of -4.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GHMS and CGMS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GHMSCGMSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-4.73%

-4.08%

-0.65%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-2.73%

-2.47%

-0.26%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-4.08%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.44%

0.00%

-2.44%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.21%

-0.67%

-0.54%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.80%

0.55%

+1.25%

Volatility

GHMS vs. CGMS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF (GHMS) is 0.00%, while Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF (CGMS) has a volatility of 1.16%. This indicates that GHMS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGMS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GHMSCGMSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.00%

1.16%

-1.16%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

1.74%

2.65%

-0.91%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.97%

3.43%

+1.54%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.37%

5.13%

+0.24%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5.37%

5.13%

+0.24%

GHMS vs. CGMS - Expense Ratio Comparison

GHMS has a 1.20% expense ratio, which is higher than CGMS's 0.39% expense ratio.


Dividends

GHMS vs. CGMS - Dividend Comparison

GHMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.69%, less than CGMS's 6.08% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022
CGMS
Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF
6.08%6.00%5.91%5.84%0.97%
GHMS
Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF
1.69%1.69%4.48%0.29%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


GHMS and CGMS have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CGMS has higher volatility (1.16%) compared to GHMS (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GHMS dropped -4.73% vs CGMS's -4.08%.

On 1-year performance, CGMS leads with 7.45% vs 2.58% for GHMS. On fees, CGMS is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, GHMS has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, CGMS has performed better with a 7.45% return vs 2.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CGMS is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 1.20% for GHMS.

CGMS has the higher dividend yield at 6.08%, compared with 1.69% for GHMS.

They also come from different issuers: Goose Hollow and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 1.20% for GHMS and 0.39% for CGMS.

CGMS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 vs 0.66), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GHMS and CGMS

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer