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 DGRW: how they differ

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

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund.

What they hold in common

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

Positions CGBL and DGRW both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLDGRW
Broadcom Inc4.57%2.34%
Alphabet Inc2.78%2.32%
Apple Inc2.00%3.87%
Microsoft Corp1.96%5.75%
NVIDIA Corp1.19%7.95%
Meta Platforms Inc1.10%2.97%
Bank of America Corp0.96%0.99%
Visa Inc0.92%1.41%
Gilead Sciences Inc0.74%1.25%
Eli Lilly & Co0.73%1.53%
Deere & Co0.88%0.70%
UnitedHealth Group Inc0.63%2.92%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in DGRW
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%COCA-COLA COMPANY (THE) 2.88%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%JOHNSON & JOHNSON 2.34%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%ORACLE CORP 2.34%
Micron Technology Inc 2.23%ALPHABET INC 2.31%
Philip Morris International Inc 2.07%ABBVIE INC 2.07%
GE Vernova Inc 1.25%APPLIED MATERIALS INC 1.71%
ATI Inc 1.23%EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP 1.59%
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc 1.20%MCDONALD'S CORP 1.57%

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 DGRW on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
DGRW
WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalWisdomTree
What it isCore BalancedU.S. Quality Dividend Growth
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+12.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts−5.1 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.28%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%96.7%
Holdings77197

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%.

DGRW in plain words

DGRW is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Quality Dividend Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.28% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 197 positions, with the top ten at 36.2%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or DGRW?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and DGRW returned +12.4%, so DGRW returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or DGRW?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and DGRW charges 0.28%, so DGRW is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and DGRW overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 97% of DGRW 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 DGRW, 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 DGRW, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-DGRW Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources