Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGBL vs MTUM: how they differ
CGBL and MTUM hold 17% of their weight in the same names, and MTUM returned more over the year.
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and MTUM hold 17% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGBL | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| Broadcom Inc | 4.57% | 5.41% |
| Alphabet Inc | 2.78% | 2.39% |
| Micron Technology Inc | 2.23% | 5.57% |
| GE Vernova Inc | 1.25% | 2.54% |
| NVIDIA Corp | 1.19% | 4.65% |
| KLA Corp | 1.08% | 1.61% |
| Intel Corp | 0.91% | 3.84% |
| Gilead Sciences Inc | 0.74% | 1.03% |
| Caterpillar Inc | 0.58% | 3.21% |
| General Electric Co | 0.52% | 1.90% |
| Quanta Services Inc | 0.43% | 0.46% |
| Wells Fargo & Co | 0.42% | 1.26% |
| Only in CGBL | Only in MTUM |
|---|---|
| Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22% | ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 4.04% |
| Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60% | JOHNSON & JOHNSON 3.76% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48% | LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION 3.62% |
| Philip Morris International Inc 2.07% | EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 3.44% |
| Apple Inc 2.00% | ALPHABET INC. 2.95% |
| Microsoft Corp 1.96% | WALMART INC. 2.76% |
| ATI Inc 1.23% | APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. 2.36% |
| Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc 1.20% | THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. 1.69% |
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 Capital Group Core Balanced ETF | MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | iShares |
| What it is | Core Balanced | MSCI USA Momentum Factor |
| Total return, 1 year | +9.9% | +21.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −7.6 pts | +4.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.15% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 48.1% | 98.2% |
| Holdings | 77 | 125 |
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%.
MTUM in plain words
MTUM is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.8% 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 Apr 30, 2026, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 125 positions, with the top ten at 40.5%. It sat 11.1% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or MTUM?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and MTUM returned +21.8%, so MTUM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGBL or MTUM?
- CGBL charges 0.33% a year and MTUM charges 0.15%, so MTUM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGBL and MTUM overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 98% of MTUM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 17% 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 MTUM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-MTUM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources