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 GARP: how they differ

CGBL and GARP hold 19% of their weight in the same names, and GARP returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and iShares MSCI USA Quality GARP ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and GARP hold 19% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and GARP both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLGARP
Broadcom Inc4.57%3.96%
Micron Technology Inc2.23%6.07%
Apple Inc2.00%4.44%
Microsoft Corp1.96%4.10%
NVIDIA Corp1.19%4.16%
Meta Platforms Inc1.10%3.35%
KLA Corp1.08%6.46%
Visa Inc0.92%3.73%
Alphabet Inc2.78%0.91%
Amazon.com Inc0.81%1.49%
Eli Lilly & Co0.73%3.73%
General Electric Co0.52%2.13%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in GARP
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%LAM RESEARCH CORP 3.79%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%FORTINET INC 3.16%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%ALPHABET INC 2.88%
Philip Morris International Inc 2.07%NETFLIX INC 2.85%
ATI Inc 1.23%ADOBE INC 2.71%
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc 1.20%ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC 2.21%
Boeing Co/The 1.07%PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC 1.78%
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp 1.03%AMPHENOL CORP 1.52%

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 GARP on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
GARP
iShares MSCI USA Quality GARP ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitaliShares
What it isCore BalancedMSCI USA Quality GARP
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+29.5%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts+12.0 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%94.4%
Holdings77131

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%.

GARP in plain words

GARP is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Quality GARP. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +29.5% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 131 positions, with the top ten at 43.8%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or GARP?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and GARP returned +29.5%, so GARP returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or GARP?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and GARP charges 0.15%, so GARP is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and GARP overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 94% of GARP by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 19% 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 GARP, 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 GARP, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-GARP Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources