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 ITOT: how they differ

CGBL and ITOT hold 26% of their weight in the same names, and ITOT returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and ITOT hold 26% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and ITOT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLITOT
Broadcom Inc4.57%2.45%
Alphabet Inc2.78%2.29%
Apple Inc2.00%5.82%
Microsoft Corp1.96%3.80%
Micron Technology Inc2.23%1.78%
NVIDIA Corp1.19%6.64%
Meta Platforms Inc1.10%1.70%
Intel Corp0.91%0.90%
Amazon.com Inc0.81%3.20%
Visa Inc0.92%0.78%
Eli Lilly & Co0.73%1.30%
Caterpillar Inc0.58%0.67%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in ITOT
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%Alphabet, Inc. 2.87%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%Tesla, Inc. 1.62%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 1.30%
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp 1.03%Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. 1.26%
Franco-Nevada Corp 0.89%Johnson & Johnson 0.84%
Capital Group Central Cash Fund 0.85%Applied Materials, Inc. 0.79%
Aon PLC 0.84%Exxon Mobil Corp. 0.78%
Lundin Mining Corp 0.65%Lam Research Corp. 0.74%

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 ITOT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
ITOT
iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitaliShares
What it isCore BalancedCore S&P Total U.S. Stock Market
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+17.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts−0.3 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.03%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%88.3%
Holdings772497

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%.

ITOT in plain words

ITOT is an index equity fund tracking the Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 88% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2497 positions, with the top ten at 32.2%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or ITOT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and ITOT returned +17.2%, so ITOT returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or ITOT?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and ITOT charges 0.03%, so ITOT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and ITOT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 88% of ITOT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 26% 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 ITOT, 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 ITOT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-ITOT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources