Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGBL vs DIA: how they differ
CGBL and DIA are both equity index funds, and over the year DIA returned more, +15.6% against +9.9%.
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust.
| CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF | DIA SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | State Street |
| What it is | Core Balanced | Dow Jones Industrial Average |
| Total return, 1 year | +9.9% | +15.6% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −7.6 pts | −1.9 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | not published |
| Holdings | 77 | not filed |
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%.
DIA in plain words
DIA is an index equity fund tracking the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +15.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. It sat 3.1% below its high of Aug 5, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or DIA?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and DIA returned +15.6%, so DIA returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, CGBL against DIA, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-DIA Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources