Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGBL vs IWF: how they differ
CGBL and IWF hold 25% of their weight in the same names, and CGBL returned more over the year.
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and IWF hold 25% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGBL | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Broadcom Inc | 4.57% | 5.21% |
| Alphabet Inc | 2.78% | 4.98% |
| Micron Technology Inc | 2.23% | 3.86% |
| Apple Inc | 2.00% | 6.72% |
| Microsoft Corp | 1.96% | 4.11% |
| NVIDIA Corp | 1.19% | 13.85% |
| Meta Platforms Inc | 1.10% | 3.01% |
| KLA Corp | 1.08% | 1.17% |
| GE Vernova Inc | 1.25% | 0.94% |
| Visa Inc | 0.92% | 1.68% |
| Eli Lilly & Co | 0.73% | 2.84% |
| Caterpillar Inc | 0.58% | 1.44% |
| Only in CGBL | Only in IWF |
|---|---|
| Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22% | ALPHABET INC. 6.18% |
| Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60% | TESLA, INC. 3.65% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48% | ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 2.80% |
| Philip Morris International Inc 2.07% | APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. 1.70% |
| Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc 1.20% | LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION 1.61% |
| Wheaton Precious Metals Corp 1.03% | SANDISK CORPORATION 0.98% |
| Southern Co/The 0.97% | NETFLIX, INC. 0.89% |
| Royal Gold Inc 0.96% | PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC. 0.82% |
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 Capital Group Core Balanced ETF | IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | iShares |
| What it is | Core Balanced | Russell 1000 growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +9.9% | +7.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −7.6 pts | −10.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.18% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 48.1% | 93.6% |
| Holdings | 77 | 368 |
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%.
IWF in plain words
IWF is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% 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 368 positions, with the top ten at 54.4%. It sat 5.0% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or IWF?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and IWF returned +7.0%, so CGBL returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGBL or IWF?
- CGBL charges 0.33% a year and IWF charges 0.18%, so IWF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGBL and IWF overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 94% of IWF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 25% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, CGBL against IWF, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-IWF Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources