CGBL vs PSMD
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF vs Pacer Swan SOS Moderate (January) ETF
Which is better, CGBL or PSMD?
Each has led over a different period.
CGBL has a lower expense ratio. CGBL led over 3Y and the full window, PSMD over 1Y.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGBL | PSMD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.33%Best | 0.49% |
| AUM | $7.8B | $96M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.94% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 155 | 12 |
| YTD Return | +4.99% | +8.82%Best |
| 1Y Return | +7.78% | +11.77%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.55%Best | +12.79% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +9.42% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 9.2% | 6.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -11.7% | -10.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 3 years | $15,504Best | $14,444 |
| Fund Family | Capital Group (US) | Pacer ETFs |
| Category | Allocation/Balanced | Allocation/Balanced |
| Style | Equity-oriented Balanced | Equity-oriented Balanced |
| Inception | Sep 26, 2023 | Dec 22, 2020 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 28, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3 years).
CGBL vs PSMD growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 3 years both funds cover.
CGBL vs PSMD Performance
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) is an ETF from Capital Group (US) and Pacer Swan SOS Moderate (January) ETF (PSMD) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs. Over the past year CGBL returned +7.78% while PSMD returned +11.77%. Year to date, CGBL is up 4.99% versus a gain of 8.82% for PSMD.
Over three years, CGBL compounded at +15.55% per year against +12.79% for PSMD.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CGBL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 9.2% compared with 6.1% for PSMD. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -11.7% for CGBL and -10.7% for PSMD. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.88. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGBL charges 0.33% per year while PSMD charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $33 vs $49 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGBL currently yields 1.94% against 0.00% for PSMD.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of CGBL and PSMD you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGBL or PSMD?
CGBL has an expense ratio of 0.33% while PSMD charges 0.49%. CGBL is the cheaper option, by $16 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CGBL or PSMD?
Over the past year CGBL returned +7.78% vs +11.77% for PSMD, so PSMD leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CGBL or PSMD?
CGBL has been the more volatile fund at 9.2% annualized versus 6.1% for PSMD. Worst drawdown: CGBL -11.7% vs PSMD -10.7%.
Should I hold both CGBL and PSMD?
CGBL and PSMD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.88, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGBL or PSMD?
CGBL yields 1.94% while PSMD yields 0.00%, so CGBL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PSMD better than CGBL?
CGBL has a lower expense ratio. CGBL led over 3Y and the full window, PSMD over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.