CGUS vs FMCX
Capital Group Core Equity ETF vs FM Focus Equity ETF
Which is better, CGUS or FMCX?
Nearly the same fund. CGUS costs less.
CGUS has a lower expense ratio. CGUS led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. CGUS is less concentrated, with 42.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 54.3%.
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 | CGUS | FMCX |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.33%Best | 0.72% |
| AUM | $12.0B | $117M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.82% | 0.29% |
| Holdings | 75 | 32 |
| YTD Return | +13.10%Best | +6.40% |
| 1Y Return | +16.24%Best | +5.08% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.20%Best | +15.53% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.1%Best | 15.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -18.1%Best | -18.5% |
| $10,000 over 4.5 years | $19,722Best | $15,075 |
| Top 10 Weight | 42.4%Best | 54.3% |
| Fund Family | Capital Group (US) | First Manhattan |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Feb 22, 2022 | Apr 22, 2022 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized).
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.5 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 25, 2022 to Oct 13, 2026 (4.5 years).
CGUS vs FMCX 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 4.5 years both funds cover.
CGUS vs FMCX Performance
Capital Group Core Equity ETF (CGUS) is an ETF from Capital Group (US) and FM Focus Equity ETF (FMCX) is an ETF from First Manhattan. Over the past year CGUS returned +16.24% while FMCX returned +5.08%. Year to date, CGUS is up 13.10% versus a gain of 6.40% for FMCX.
Over three years, CGUS compounded at +22.20% per year against +15.53% for FMCX.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FMCX has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.4% compared with 14.1% for CGUS. 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 -18.1% for CGUS and -18.5% for FMCX. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGUS charges 0.33% per year while FMCX charges 0.72%. On a $10,000 position that is $33 vs $72 annually, a gap of $39 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGUS currently yields 0.82% against 0.29% for FMCX.
Holdings Overlap
41.2% of CGUS's money is in holdings FMCX also owns. 47.2% of FMCX's money is in holdings CGUS also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
The two holdings books were reported 104 days apart, CGUS as of Sep 12, 2026 and FMCX as of May 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
15 positions in common, counted across the 68 positions we hold weights for in CGUS and 32 in FMCX, against full books of 75 and 32.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 15 positions for FMCX that do not appear in our book for CGUS (49.6% of the fund), and 43 for CGUS that do not appear in FMCX (47.5%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in CGUS | Weight in FMCX | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 6.79% | 6.63% | 0.16% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.88% | 4.87% | 0.01% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.42% | 1.93% | 5.49% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.39% | 3.83% | 1.56% |
| GEGeneral Electric Co. | 1.26% | 5.69% | 4.43% |
| INTCIntel Corporation | 0.68% | 5.38% | 4.70% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.07% | 1.79% | 2.28% |
| CRMSalesforce Inc Crm Us Equity | 0.63% | 3.35% | 2.72% |
| UBERUber Technologies Inc | 1.42% | 2.39% | 0.97% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 1.77% | 2.00% | 0.23% |
47.2% of FMCX is already inside CGUS.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGUS or FMCX?
CGUS has an expense ratio of 0.33% while FMCX charges 0.72%. CGUS is the cheaper option, by $39 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CGUS or FMCX?
Over the past year CGUS returned +16.24% vs +5.08% for FMCX, so CGUS leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CGUS or FMCX?
FMCX has been the more volatile fund at 15.4% annualized versus 14.1% for CGUS. Worst drawdown: CGUS -18.1% vs FMCX -18.5%.
Should I hold both CGUS and FMCX?
CGUS and FMCX have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CGUS and FMCX?
47.2% of FMCX's money is in holdings CGUS also owns. 47.2% of FMCX's is in holdings CGUS also owns. They hold 15 positions in common, counted across the 68 positions we hold weights for in CGUS and 32 in FMCX.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGUS or FMCX?
CGUS yields 0.82% while FMCX yields 0.29%, so CGUS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FMCX better than CGUS?
CGUS has a lower expense ratio. CGUS led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. CGUS is less concentrated, with 42.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 54.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.