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 FBCG: how they differ

CGBL and FBCG hold 18% of their weight in the same names, and FBCG returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and FBCG hold 18% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and FBCG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLFBCG
Broadcom Inc4.57%3.74%
Apple Inc2.00%9.64%
Microsoft Corp1.96%5.20%
NVIDIA Corp1.19%14.62%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt3.48%1.12%
Meta Platforms Inc1.10%3.90%
GE Vernova Inc1.25%0.82%
Micron Technology Inc2.23%0.82%
Amazon.com Inc0.81%8.43%
Eli Lilly & Co0.73%2.25%
Gilead Sciences Inc0.74%0.69%
Boeing Co/The1.07%0.63%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in FBCG
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%ALPHABET INC 9.10%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%NETFLIX INC 2.23%
Alphabet Inc 2.78%MARVELL TECHNOLOGY INC 2.03%
Philip Morris International Inc 2.07%TESLA INC 1.45%
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc 1.20%APPLOVIN CORP 1.26%
Booking Holdings Inc 1.10%WESTERN DIGITAL CORP 1.19%
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp 1.03%MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS INC 1.03%
Southern Co/The 0.97%CELESTICA INC 0.88%

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 FBCG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalFidelity
What it isCore BalancedBlue Chip Growth
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+17.3%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts−0.2 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.57%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%86.8%
Holdings77214

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%.

FBCG in plain words

FBCG is an index equity fund tracking the Blue Chip Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.57% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 214 positions, with the top ten at 61.2%. It sat 3.7% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or FBCG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and FBCG returned +17.3%, so FBCG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or FBCG?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and FBCG charges 0.57%, so CGBL is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and FBCG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 87% of FBCG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 18% 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 FBCG, 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 FBCG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-FBCG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources