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 FNDX: how they differ

CGBL and FNDX hold 23% of their weight in the same names, and FNDX returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and FNDX hold 23% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and FNDX both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLFNDX
Apple Inc2.00%4.64%
Microsoft Corp1.96%2.33%
Alphabet Inc2.78%1.90%
Micron Technology Inc2.23%1.60%
Meta Platforms Inc1.10%1.24%
Intel Corp0.91%2.57%
Bank of America Corp0.96%0.87%
Amazon.com Inc0.81%1.86%
Broadcom Inc4.57%0.65%
UnitedHealth Group Inc0.63%1.37%
Caterpillar Inc0.58%0.60%
Comcast Corp0.65%0.57%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in FNDX
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%Alphabet Inc 2.38%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%Exxon Mobil Corp 2.29%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%Chevron Corp 1.49%
ATI Inc 1.23%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 1.41%
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp 1.03%Walmart Inc 1.01%
Royal Gold Inc 0.96%Verizon Communications Inc 0.99%
Franco-Nevada Corp 0.89%Johnson & Johnson 0.97%
Capital Group Central Cash Fund 0.85%Cisco Systems Inc 0.90%

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 and May 31, 2026.

CGBL and FNDX on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
FNDX
Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalSchwab
What it isCore BalancedFundamental U.S. Large Company
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+26.1%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts+8.6 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.25%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%91.2%
Holdings77733

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%.

FNDX in plain words

FNDX is an index equity fund tracking the Fundamental U.S. Large Company. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +26.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.25% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 91% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 733 positions, with the top ten at 22.5%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or FNDX?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and FNDX returned +26.1%, so FNDX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or FNDX?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and FNDX charges 0.25%, so FNDX is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and FNDX overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 91% of FNDX by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 23% 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 FNDX, 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 FNDX, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-FNDX Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources