CGCP vs EMB: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CGCP and EMB are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CGCP is Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF, while EMB is iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF. CGCP is broader by holdings count, with 1,493 positions versus 619 for EMB. CGCP is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has EMB ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 57.
What is the main difference between CGCP and EMB?
CGCP and EMB have little in common: 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | CGCP | EMB |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.34% | 0.39% |
| Holdings | 1,493 | 619 |
| Top-10 concentration | 17.8% | 6.3% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 5.27% | 5.41% |
| Average volume | 1,833,718 | 6,815,821 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -6.7% | -4.7% |
| YTD return | -5.6% | -5.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 4.1% | 6.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8% | -7.8% |
| Beta | 0.15 | 0.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.62 | -1.39 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.64 | -1.98 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 61/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 58/100 | 46/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 91/100 | 89/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF vs iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
EMB leads
EMB leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support EMB, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF
iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EMB over CGCP, 61 versus 57 as of Oct 21, 2026. EMB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while CGCP holds the stronger momentum profile. EMB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor EMB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. EMB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF and iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CGCP vs EMB: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | CGCP | EMB | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.34% | 0.39% | CGCP |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,493 | 619 | CGCP |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 17.8% | 6.3% | EMB |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 5.27% | 5.41% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -8% | -7.8% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 4.1% | 6.2% | CGCP |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare CGCP and EMB against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value36 vs 55EMB +19
- Momentum58 vs 46CGCP +12
- Quality61 vs 67EMB +6
- Risk Resilience91 vs 89Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor EMB. EMB’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; CGCP keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
EMB's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CGCP and EMB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EMB (iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
CGCP (Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF): the counter-case, on momentum.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | CGCP | EMB | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.34% | 0.39% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,493 | 619 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,833,718 | 6,815,821 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 4.1% | 6.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8% | -7.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.62 | -1.39 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.15 | 0.32 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
CGCP and EMB share 1.18% of their weighted exposure across 30 common holdings.
1,420 holdings are unique to CGCP, and 586 holdings are unique to EMB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
CGCP is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 17.8% of the fund, against 6.3% for EMB (1,493 holdings vs 619). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | CGCP | EMB | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| MEXICO (UNITED MEXICAN STATES) (GO 6.25% 08/27/2037 | 0.18% | 0.2% | 0.18% |
| COLOMBIA (REPUBLIC OF) 7.50% 02/02/2034 | 0.12% | 0.29% | 0.12% |
| COLOMBIA (REPUBLIC OF) 7.75% 11/07/2036 | 0.1% | 0.27% | 0.1% |
| BRAZIL FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF (GOV 6.25% 05/22/2036 | 0.1% | 0.28% | 0.1% |
| PETROLEOS MEXICANOS 5.95% 01/28/2031 | 0.09% | 0.16% | 0.09% |
| MEXICO (UNITED MEXICAN STATES) (GO 6.00% 05/07/2036 | 0.08% | 0.17% | 0.08% |
| TURKEY (REPUBLIC OF) 6.50% 09/20/2033 | 0.07% | 0.09% | 0.07% |
| PETROLEOS MEXICANOS 6.84% 01/23/2030 | 0.06% | 0.1% | 0.06% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What CGCP adds that EMB doesn’t
| Holding | CGCP | EMB |
|---|---|---|
| US TREASURY N/B 08/46 5.125 | 3.64% | Not held |
| US TREASURY N/B 05/56 5 | 2.46% | Not held |
| US TREASURY N/B 02/55 4.625 | 2.01% | Not held |
| FNMA TBA 30 YR 6 SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE | 1.81% | Not held |
| FNMA TBA 30 YR 2.5 SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE | 1.62% | Not held |
| US TREASURY N/B 05/41 4.375 | 1.35% | Not held |
What EMB adds that CGCP doesn’t
| Holding | EMB | CGCP |
|---|---|---|
| ARGENTINA REPUBLIC OF GOVERNMENT 4.13% 07/09/2035 | 1.17% | Not held |
| ECUADOR REPUBLIC OF (GOVERNMENT) RegS 6.90% 07/31/2035 | 0.79% | Not held |
| ARGENTINA REPUBLIC OF GOVERNMENT 5.00% 01/09/2038 | 0.69% | Not held |
| ARGENTINA REPUBLIC OF GOVERNMENT 0.75% 07/09/2030 | 0.67% | Not held |
| GHANA (REPUBLIC OF) DISCO RegS 5.00% 07/03/2035 | 0.57% | Not held |
| ARGENTINA REPUBLIC OF GOVERNMENT 3.50% 07/09/2041 | 0.56% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor EMB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EMB | 57 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | EMB | Value 36 vs 55 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.2% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day -3.9% vs -4.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 91 vs 89 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CGCP and EMB and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on EMB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20EMB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EMB +4
- 57 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- EMB +7
- 53 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- EMB +7
- 49 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- CGCP +2
- 61 vs 59
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 6 when EMB moved ahead of CGCP.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CGCP
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only EMB
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week Low Proximity, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
EMB leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.05%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.24%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1CGCP closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMB's edge.
- 2CGCP's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3EMB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate EMB's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
CGCP leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CGCP | EMB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.3% | 0% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.5% | -2.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3% | -4.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.1% | -5.1% |
| Year to date | -5.6% | -5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -6.7% | -4.7% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CGCP | EMB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 71.4 | 54.9 |
| ADX (14) | 35.7 | 35.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.2% | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.9% | -4.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 5.5% | 7.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CGCP | EMB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.15 | 0.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.62 | -1.39 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.64 | -1.98 |
| Max drawdown | -8% | -7.8% |
| Current drawdown | -7% | -6.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 4.1% | 6.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.5% | -0.7% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between CGCP and EMB?
CGCP and EMB have little in common: 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do CGCP and EMB overlap?
CGCP and EMB share 1.18% of their weighted exposure across 30 common holdings. 1,420 holdings are unique to CGCP, and 586 holdings are unique to EMB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, CGCP or EMB?
CGCP holds more positions: 1,493 versus 619 for EMB.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
CGCP has the lower expense ratio, 0.34% a year against 0.39% for EMB.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 5.27% for CGCP and 5.41% for EMB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
EMB has been more volatile over the past year, at 6.2% annualized against 4.1% for CGCP.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past year are similar: -8% for CGCP and -7.8% for EMB.
Compare CGCP and EMB with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.