Screener
BFOR vs CGUS
Barron's 400 ETF vs Capital Group Core Equity ETF
Key differences
- CGUS costs 0.32% less per year.
- CGUS is significantly larger than BFOR — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- BFOR follows a index tracking strategy; CGUS uses active selection.
- Over the last 3 years, CGUS has delivered higher annualized returns.
- BFOR has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| BFOR | CGUS | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.65% | 0.33% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $211M | $10.3B |
| Since | 2013 | 2022 |
| Dividend yield | 0.55% | 0.90% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | active selection |
| CAGR 1Y | +22.3% | +27.8% |
| CAGR 3Y | +20.1% | +23.0% |
| CAGR 5Y | +10.0% | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.94 | 1.27 |
| Volatility 1Y | 14.92% | 12.50% |
| Max drawdown | -41.27% | -22.15% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to BFOR and CGUS
Explore further