Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or PULS?

In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and PULS returned +4.2%, so CGBL returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.

Which is cheaper, CGBL or PULS?

CGBL charges 0.33% a year and PULS charges 0.15%, so PULS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

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 PULS: how they differ

CGBL and PULS hold 0% of their weight in the same names, and CGBL returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and PULS hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBL	Only in PULS
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%	PGIM ETF Trust 2.38%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%	GLENCORE FUNDING LLC 0.98%
Broadcom Inc 4.57%	Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. 0.87%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%	ABN AMRO BANK NV 0.75%
Alphabet Inc 2.78%	BX TRUST 2022-LBA6 0.68%
Micron Technology Inc 2.23%	FEDERATION DES CAISSES DESJARDINS DU QUE 0.67%
Philip Morris International Inc 2.07%	BX TRUST 2018-BILT 0.56%
Apple Inc 2.00%	BROADCOM INC 0.56%

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 29, 2026.

CGBL and PULS on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
	CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF
Where it sits	Core index fund	Core index fund
Issuer	Capital	PGIM
What it is	Core Balanced	PGIM Ultra Short Bond
Total return, 1 year	+9.9%	+4.2%
S&P 500 over the same days	+17.5%	+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500	−7.6 pts	−13.3 pts
Expense ratio	0.33%	0.15%
Holdings	77	553

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%.

PULS in plain words

PULS is a cash and treasury bills tracking the PGIM Ultra Short Bond. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +4.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or PULS?: In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and PULS returned +4.2%, so CGBL returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or PULS?: CGBL charges 0.33% a year and PULS charges 0.15%, so PULS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

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 PULS, 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 PULS, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-PULS Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources