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 DGRO: how they differ

CGBL and DGRO hold 21% of their weight in the same names, and DGRO returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and DGRO hold 21% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and DGRO both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLDGRO
Broadcom Inc4.57%3.25%
Apple Inc2.00%2.94%
Microsoft Corp1.96%2.92%
Philip Morris International Inc2.07%1.94%
Bank of America Corp0.96%1.84%
Visa Inc0.92%1.05%
Union Pacific Corp0.79%0.78%
Gilead Sciences Inc0.74%0.78%
Eli Lilly & Co0.73%1.14%
Southern Co/The0.97%0.72%
UnitedHealth Group Inc0.63%2.32%
Caterpillar Inc0.58%0.79%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in DGRO
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%EXXON MOBIL CORP 2.91%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%JOHNSON & JOHNSON 2.64%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%ABBVIE INC 2.53%
Alphabet Inc 2.78%PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY (THE) 2.08%
Micron Technology Inc 2.23%COCA-COLA COMPANY (THE) 1.80%
GE Vernova Inc 1.25%MERCK & COMPANY INC 1.75%
ATI Inc 1.23%CISCO SYSTEMS INC 1.73%
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc 1.20%PEPSICO INC 1.70%

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.

CGBL and DGRO on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
DGRO
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitaliShares
What it isCore BalancedCore Dividend Growth
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+17.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts−0.1 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%94.7%
Holdings77394

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%.

DGRO in plain words

DGRO is an index equity fund tracking the Core Dividend Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 394 positions, with the top ten at 26.6%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or DGRO?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and DGRO returned +17.4%, so DGRO returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or DGRO?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and DGRO charges 0.08%, so DGRO is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and DGRO overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 95% of DGRO by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 21% 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 DGRO, 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 DGRO, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-DGRO Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources