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

AVUS vs CGBL: how they differ

AVUS and CGBL hold 23% of their weight in the same names, and AVUS returned more over the year.

Avantis U.S. Equity ETF and Capital Group Core Balanced ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, AVUS and CGBL hold 23% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions AVUS and CGBL both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingAVUSCGBL
Micron Technology Inc2.40%2.23%
Apple Inc5.37%2.00%
Microsoft Corp3.85%1.96%
Alphabet Inc1.94%2.78%
NVIDIA Corp5.49%1.19%
Broadcom Inc1.18%4.57%
Meta Platforms Inc2.21%1.10%
Amazon.com Inc3.68%0.81%
Eli Lilly & Co0.84%0.73%
Visa Inc0.68%0.92%
Intel Corp0.58%0.91%
Caterpillar Inc0.92%0.58%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in AVUSOnly in CGBL
Alphabet Inc 2.42%Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%
Exxon Mobil Corp 1.07%Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%
Lam Research Corp 1.00%Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%
Tesla Inc 0.80%Philip Morris International Inc 2.07%
Applied Materials Inc 0.68%Wheaton Precious Metals Corp 1.03%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc 0.67%Franco-Nevada Corp 0.89%
Walmart Inc 0.64%Capital Group Central Cash Fund 0.85%
Merck & Co Inc 0.63%Aon PLC 0.84%

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 Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

AVUS and CGBL on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
AVUS
Avantis U.S. Equity ETF
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerAvantisCapital
What it isU.S. EquityCore Balanced
Total return, 1 year+21.6%+9.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+4.1 pts−7.6 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.33%
Already in the S&P 50084.4%48.1%
Holdings187577

AVUS in plain words

AVUS is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 84% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1875 positions, with the top ten at 29.7%.

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, AVUS or CGBL?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, AVUS returned +21.6% and CGBL returned +9.9%, so AVUS returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, AVUS or CGBL?
AVUS charges 0.15% a year and CGBL charges 0.33%, so AVUS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do AVUS and CGBL overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 84% of AVUS and 48% of CGBL by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 23% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources