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 CTA: how they differ

CGBL and CTA hold 0% of their weight in the same names, and CTA returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and CTA hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in CTA
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%SIMPLIFY EXCHANGE TRADED FUNDS 81.69%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - BUREAU OF THE 3.72%
Broadcom Inc 4.57%UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - BUREAU OF THE 3.44%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - BUREAU OF THE 2.76%
Alphabet Inc 2.78%UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - BUREAU OF THE 2.75%
Micron Technology Inc 2.23%UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - BUREAU OF THE 2.20%
Philip Morris International Inc 2.07%UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - BUREAU OF THE 1.37%
Apple Inc 2.00%UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - BUREAU OF THE 1.07%

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.

CGBL and CTA on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
CTA
Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalSimplify
What it isCore BalancedSimplify Managed Futures Strategy
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+17.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts−0.5 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.75%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%0.0%
Holdings7710

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%.

CTA in plain words

CTA is an index equity fund tracking the Simplify Managed Futures Strategy. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.75% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 10 positions, with the top ten at 100.0%. It sat 5.3% below its high of May 4, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or CTA?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and CTA returned +17.0%, so CTA returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or CTA?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and CTA charges 0.75%, so CGBL is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and CTA overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 0% of CTA by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 0% 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 CTA, 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 CTA, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-CTA Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources