MKAM vs. CGBL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MKAM (MKAM ETF) and CGBL (Capital Group Core Balanced ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MKAM returned 14.34% vs 18.61% for CGBL. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MKAM charges 0.96%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CGBL.

Performance

MKAM vs. CGBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MKAM ETF (MKAM) 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, MKAM achieves a 5.12% return, which is significantly lower than CGBL's 7.45% return.

MKAM

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 2.69%
• YTD: 5.12%
• 6M: 5.30%
• 1Y: 14.34%
• 3Y*: 10.42%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CGBL

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: 3.64%
• YTD: 7.45%
• 6M: 8.19%
• 1Y: 18.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MKAM vs. CGBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MKAM MKAM ETF	5.12%	8.07%	12.15%	4.61%
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	7.45%	15.33%	16.64%	9.80%

Correlation

The correlation between MKAM and CGBL is 0.89, 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	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2023	0.86

The correlation between MKAM and CGBL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

MKAM vs. CGBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MKAM	CGBL
Technology	35.6%	29.9%
Financial Services	11.8%	11.8%
Communication Services	11.2%	8.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	8.7%
Healthcare	8.5%	8.9%
Industrials	8.3%	16.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.2%
Energy	3.5%	2.0%
Utilities	2.4%	2.5%
Real Estate	1.9%	0.0%
Basic Materials	1.8%	7.2%

Return for Risk

MKAM vs. CGBL — Risk / Return Rank

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

MKAM

MKAM Risk / Return Rank: 75
MKAM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
MKAM Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
MKAM Omega Ratio Rank: 75
MKAM Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
MKAM Martin Ratio Rank: 77

CGBL

CGBL Risk / Return Rank: 55
CGBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
CGBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
CGBL Omega Ratio Rank: 57
CGBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
CGBL Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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.

MKAM vs. CGBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MKAM ETF (MKAM) 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.

	MKAM	CGBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.36	1.95	+0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.29	2.82	+0.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.35	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.87	2.37	+1.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.70	10.54	+4.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MKAM vs. CGBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MKAM Sharpe Ratio is 2.36, which is comparable to the CGBL Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MKAM 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

	MKAM	CGBL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.36	1.95	+0.41
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.74	1.72	+0.02

Drawdowns

MKAM vs. CGBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MKAM drawdown since its inception was -5.01%, smaller than the maximum CGBL drawdown of -11.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MKAM and CGBL.

Drawdown Indicators

	MKAM	CGBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.01%	-11.66%	+6.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.72%	-7.88%	+4.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.01%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.36%	-0.60%	+0.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.13%	-1.29%	+0.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.98%	1.77%	-0.79%

Volatility

MKAM vs. CGBL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MKAM ETF (MKAM) is 1.48%, while Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) has a volatility of 3.14%. This indicates that MKAM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MKAM	CGBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.48%	3.14%	-1.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.51%	7.85%	-3.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.10%	9.61%	-3.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.22%	11.03%	-4.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.22%	11.03%	-4.81%

MKAM vs. CGBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

MKAM has a 0.96% expense ratio, which is higher than CGBL's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

MKAM vs. CGBL - Dividend Comparison

MKAM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.90%, more than CGBL's 1.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	1.86%	1.98%	1.92%	0.48%
MKAM MKAM ETF	2.90%	2.56%	1.88%	1.70%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MKAM and CGBL in my portfolio?

MKAM and CGBL have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MKAM or CGBL?

CGBL has higher volatility (3.14%) compared to MKAM (1.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MKAM dropped -5.01% vs CGBL's -11.66%.

Which ETF is better, MKAM or CGBL?

On 1-year performance, CGBL leads with 18.61% vs 14.34% for MKAM. On fees, CGBL is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, MKAM has been the lower-risk option at 1.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MKAM or CGBL?

Over the 1-year period, CGBL has performed better with a 18.61% return vs 14.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MKAM or CGBL?

CGBL is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.96% for MKAM.

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

MKAM has the higher dividend yield at 2.90%, compared with 1.86% for CGBL.

What is the main difference between MKAM and CGBL?

They also come from different issuers: MKAM and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.96% for MKAM and 0.33% for CGBL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MKAM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 1.95), 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.