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 QQQ: how they differ

CGBL and QQQ hold 21% of their weight in the same names, and QQQ returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and QQQ hold 21% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and QQQ both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLQQQ
Broadcom Inc4.57%3.37%
Alphabet Inc2.78%3.26%
Micron Technology Inc2.23%4.80%
Apple Inc2.00%7.29%
Microsoft Corp1.96%5.32%
NVIDIA Corp1.19%8.16%
Meta Platforms Inc1.10%2.97%
KLA Corp1.08%1.11%
Intel Corp0.91%2.52%
Amazon.com Inc0.81%4.62%
Gilead Sciences Inc0.74%0.73%
Booking Holdings Inc1.10%0.58%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in QQQ
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 3.70%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%Alphabet Inc. 3.52%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%Tesla, Inc. 3.46%
Philip Morris International Inc 2.07%Walmart Inc. 2.48%
GE Vernova Inc 1.25%Cisco Systems, Inc. 2.09%
ATI Inc 1.23%Lam Research Corp. 1.75%
Boeing Co/The 1.07%Netflix, Inc. 1.59%
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp 1.03%Palantir Technologies Inc. 1.58%

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 31, 2026.

CGBL and QQQ on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
QQQ
Invesco QQQ Trust
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalInvesco
What it isCore BalancedNasdaq-100, book from QQQM
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+23.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts+5.5 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.18%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%96.7%
Holdings77101

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%.

QQQ in plain words

QQQ is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq-100. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +23.0% 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 May 31, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 101 positions, with the top ten at 47.5%. It sat 4.1% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or QQQ?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and QQQ returned +23.0%, so QQQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or QQQ?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and QQQ charges 0.18%, so QQQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and QQQ overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 97% of QQQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 21% 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 QQQ, 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 QQQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-QQQ Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources