Screener
BFOR vs CGMS
Barron's 400 ETF vs Capital Group U.S. Multi-Sector Income ETF
Key differences
- CGMS costs 0.26% less per year.
- CGMS is significantly larger than BFOR — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- BFOR is classified as equity, while CGMS is fixed income — different risk/return profiles.
- Over the last 3 years, BFOR has delivered higher annualized returns.
- BFOR has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| BFOR | CGMS | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.65% | 0.39% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $211M | $4.7B |
| Since | 2013 | 2022 |
| Dividend yield | 0.55% | 5.93% |
| Asset class | equity | fixed income |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +22.3% | +7.9% |
| CAGR 3Y | +20.1% | +8.0% |
| CAGR 5Y | +10.0% | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.94 | 0.92 |
| Volatility 1Y | 14.92% | 3.49% |
| Max drawdown | -41.27% | -4.08% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to BFOR and CGMS
Explore further