Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

ACWI vs CGBL: how they differ

ACWI and CGBL hold 20% of their weight in the same names, and ACWI returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and Capital Group Core Balanced ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and CGBL hold 20% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and CGBL both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWICGBL
APPLE INC.4.02%2.00%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION2.90%1.96%
BROADCOM INC.1.90%4.57%
ALPHABET INC.1.87%2.78%
NVIDIA CORPORATION4.89%1.19%
META PLATFORMS, INC.1.34%1.10%
AMAZON.COM, INC.2.58%0.81%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY0.76%0.73%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.0.59%2.23%
VISA INC.0.56%0.92%
INTEL CORPORATION0.43%0.91%
MASTERCARD INCORPORATED0.43%0.51%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in CGBL
ALPHABET INC. 2.26%Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%
TESLA, INC. 1.09%Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 0.66%ATI Inc 1.23%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 0.66%Royal Gold Inc 0.96%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 0.58%Capital Group Central Cash Fund 0.85%
WALMART INC. 0.58%Aon PLC 0.84%
ASML Holding N.V. 0.56%ASML Holding NV 0.62%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026 and Jun 30, 2026.

ACWI and CGBL on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesCapital
What it isMSCI ACWICore Balanced
Total return, 1 year+19.1%+9.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts−7.6 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.33%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%48.1%
Holdings230777

ACWI in plain words

ACWI is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI ACWI. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +19.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.32% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 61% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2307 positions, with the top ten at 24.6%.

CGBL in plain words

CGBL is an index equity fund tracking the Core Balanced. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +9.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.33% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 48% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 77 positions, with the top ten at 59.2%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or CGBL?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and CGBL returned +9.9%, so ACWI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or CGBL?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and CGBL charges 0.33%, so ACWI is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and CGBL overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 48% of CGBL by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 20% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

ACWI against CGBL, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, ACWI against CGBL, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-CGBL Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources