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

CGBL vs CGDV: how they differ

CGBL and CGDV hold 25% of their weight in the same names, and CGDV returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and Capital Group Dividend Value ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and CGDV hold 25% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and CGDV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLCGDV
Broadcom Inc4.57%5.16%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt3.48%2.17%
Apple Inc2.00%2.36%
Microsoft Corp1.96%5.81%
Philip Morris International Inc2.07%1.54%
NVIDIA Corp1.19%5.66%
Meta Platforms Inc1.10%3.33%
Intel Corp0.91%1.09%
Capital Group Central Cash Fund0.85%2.02%
Amazon.com Inc0.81%1.88%
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc1.20%0.80%
Union Pacific Corp0.79%2.12%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in CGDV
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%Alphabet Inc 3.60%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%Applied Materials Inc 3.12%
Alphabet Inc 2.78%Cisco Systems Inc 3.02%
Micron Technology Inc 2.23%RTX Corp 2.82%
GE Vernova Inc 1.25%British American Tobacco PLC 2.66%
ATI Inc 1.23%Carrier Global Corp 2.64%
Booking Holdings Inc 1.10%Linde PLC 1.95%
KLA Corp 1.08%International Paper Co 1.74%

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.

CGBL and CGDV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalCapital
What it isCore BalancedDividend Value
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+18.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts+1.2 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.33%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%91.0%
Holdings7753

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%.

CGDV in plain words

CGDV is an index equity fund tracking the Dividend Value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +18.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 91% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 53 positions, with the top ten at 38.8%. It sat 4.0% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or CGDV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and CGDV returned +18.7%, so CGDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or CGDV?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and CGDV charges 0.33%, so CGBL is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and CGDV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 91% of CGDV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 25% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources