CGCP vs EMLC: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CGCP and EMLC are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CGCP is Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF, while EMLC is VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF. CGCP is broader by holdings count, with 1,493 positions versus 529 for EMLC. CGCP is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has CGCP ahead on AIQ Score, 57 versus 54.
What is the main difference between CGCP and EMLC?
CGCP and EMLC have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | CGCP | EMLC |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.34% | 0.3% |
| Holdings | 1,493 | 529 |
| Top-10 concentration | 17.8% | 7.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 5.27% | 6.4% |
| Average volume | 1,833,718 | 2,138,902 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -6.7% | -2.2% |
| YTD return | -5.6% | -3.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 4.1% | 7.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8% | -7.8% |
| Beta | 0.15 | 0.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.62 | -0.75 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.64 | -1.02 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 54/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 58/100 | 47/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 91/100 | 88/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF vs VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF
CGCP leads
CGCP leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum.
Fragile: 0 of 4 evidence groups support CGCP, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF
VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CGCP over EMLC, 57 versus 54 as of Oct 21, 2026. CGCP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum. CGCP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CGCP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. CGCP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF and VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CGCP vs EMLC: 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 | EMLC | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.34% | 0.3% | EMLC |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,493 | 529 | CGCP |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 17.8% | 7.2% | EMLC |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 5.27% | 6.4% | EMLC |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -8% | -7.8% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 4.1% | 7.8% | 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 EMLC 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.
- Momentum58 vs 47CGCP +11
- Risk Resilience91 vs 88Even
- Quality61 vs 60Even
- Value36 vs 36Even
0 of 4 evidence groups favor CGCP. CGCP’s edge is concentrated in momentum.
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
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
CGCP's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CGCP and EMLC both carry a full feed there.
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 | EMLC | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.34% | 0.3% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,493 | 529 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,833,718 | 2,138,902 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 4.1% | 7.8% | 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 | -0.75 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.15 | 0.38 | 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 EMLC share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
1,450 holdings are unique to CGCP, and 509 holdings are unique to EMLC. 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 7.21% for EMLC (1,493 holdings vs 529). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
What CGCP adds that EMLC doesn’t
| Holding | CGCP | EMLC |
|---|---|---|
| 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 EMLC adds that CGCP doesn’t
| Holding | EMLC | CGCP |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil Notas Do Tesouro Nacional Serie | 0.97% | Not held |
| Republic Of South Africa Government Bon | 0.76% | Not held |
| Mexican Bonos | 0.75% | Not held |
| Brazil Letras Do Tesouro Nacional | 0.73% | Not held |
| Mexican Bonos | 0.71% | Not held |
| Mexican Bonos | 0.71% | 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
0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CGCP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 57 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 36 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.2% vs -1.3%; vs 200-day -3.9% vs -2.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 91 vs 88 |
| 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 EMLC 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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 CGCP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CGCP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CGCP +3
- 57 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- CGCP +1
- 53 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- CGCP +1
- 49 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- CGCP +2
- 61 vs 59
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 6 when EMLC 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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
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.
CGCP 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.12%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1EMLC closes the Momentum gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to CGCP's edge.
- 2EMLC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CGCP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
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
EMLC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CGCP | EMLC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.3% | 0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.5% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3% | -1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.1% | -3.5% |
| Year to date | -5.6% | -3.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -6.7% | -2.2% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CGCP | EMLC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 71.4 | 55.7 |
| ADX (14) | 35.7 | 29.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.2% | -1.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.9% | -2.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 5.5% | 8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CGCP | EMLC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.15 | 0.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.62 | -0.75 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.64 | -1.02 |
| Max drawdown | -8% | -7.8% |
| Current drawdown | -7% | -6.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 4.1% | 7.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.5% | -0.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between CGCP and EMLC?
CGCP and EMLC have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do CGCP and EMLC overlap?
CGCP and EMLC share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 1,450 holdings are unique to CGCP, and 509 holdings are unique to EMLC. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, CGCP or EMLC?
CGCP holds more positions: 1,493 versus 529 for EMLC.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
EMLC has the lower expense ratio, 0.3% a year against 0.34% for CGCP.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
EMLC, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 6.4% against 5.27% for CGCP.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
EMLC has been more volatile over the past year, at 7.8% 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 EMLC.
Compare CGCP and EMLC 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.