RMIF vs. CGMS

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) and Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF (CGMS).

RMIF and CGMS are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. RMIF is an actively managed fund by Little Harbor Advisors. It was launched on Jun 8, 2023. CGMS is an actively managed fund by Capital Group. It was launched on Oct 25, 2022.

Performance

RMIF vs. CGMS - Performance Comparison

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

RMIF vs. CGMS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	-1.49%	4.36%	7.00%	4.16%
CGMS Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF	-0.24%	7.52%	7.24%	7.46%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RMIF achieves a -1.49% return, which is significantly lower than CGMS's -0.24% return.

RMIF

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: -1.27%
• YTD: -1.49%
• 6M: -0.40%
• 1Y: 2.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CGMS

• 1D: 0.78%
• 1M: -1.23%
• YTD: -0.24%
• 6M: 0.95%
• 1Y: 5.78%
• 3Y*: 7.33%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RMIF vs. CGMS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RMIF has a 1.38% expense ratio, which is higher than CGMS's 0.39% expense ratio.

RMIF

LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF

CGMS

Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF

Return for Risk

RMIF vs. CGMS — Risk / Return Rank

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

RMIF

RMIF Risk / Return Rank: 42
RMIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
RMIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
RMIF Omega Ratio Rank: 44
RMIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
RMIF Martin Ratio Rank: 40

CGMS

CGMS Risk / Return Rank: 72
CGMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
CGMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
CGMS Omega Ratio Rank: 74
CGMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
CGMS Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

RMIF vs. CGMS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) 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.

	RMIF	CGMS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.85	1.31	-0.46
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.11	1.82	-0.71
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.27	-0.09
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.10	1.58	-0.48
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.82	6.94	-3.12
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RMIF vs. CGMS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RMIF Sharpe Ratio is 0.85, which is lower than the CGMS Sharpe Ratio of 1.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMIF and CGMS, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RMIF	CGMS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85	1.31	-0.46
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.91	1.62	+0.28

Correlation

The correlation between RMIF and CGMS is 0.62, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

RMIF vs. CGMS - Dividend Comparison

RMIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.63%, less than CGMS's 5.95% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	5.63%	5.70%	6.61%	3.70%	0.00%
CGMS Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF	5.95%	6.00%	5.91%	5.84%	0.97%

Drawdowns

RMIF vs. CGMS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMIF drawdown since its inception was -3.01%, smaller than the maximum CGMS drawdown of -4.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMIF and CGMS.

Drawdown Indicators

	RMIF	CGMS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.01%	-4.08%	+1.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.37%	-3.65%	+1.28%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.95%	-1.42%	-0.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.31%	-0.69%	+0.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.68%	0.83%	-0.15%

Volatility

RMIF vs. CGMS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) is 1.56%, while Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF (CGMS) has a volatility of 1.93%. This indicates that RMIF 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.

Volatility by Period

	RMIF	CGMS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.56%	1.93%	-0.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.19%	2.47%	-0.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.15%	4.44%	-1.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.62%	5.19%	-2.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.62%	5.19%	-2.57%