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 QUAL: how they differ

CGBL and QUAL hold 14% of their weight in the same names, and QUAL returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and QUAL hold 14% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and QUAL both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLQUAL
Alphabet Inc2.78%2.12%
Apple Inc2.00%6.28%
Microsoft Corp1.96%5.05%
NVIDIA Corp1.19%6.52%
Meta Platforms Inc1.10%3.50%
KLA Corp1.08%2.79%
Visa Inc0.92%3.09%
Eli Lilly & Co0.73%2.92%
UnitedHealth Group Inc0.63%1.03%
Caterpillar Inc0.58%2.52%
Mastercard Inc0.51%2.30%
DR Horton Inc0.48%0.76%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in QUAL
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION 3.23%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%THE TJX COMPANIES, INC. 3.19%
Broadcom Inc 4.57%ALPHABET INC. 2.54%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. 2.45%
Micron Technology Inc 2.23%BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 2.12%
Philip Morris International Inc 2.07%NETFLIX, INC. 2.00%
GE Vernova Inc 1.25%JOHNSON & JOHNSON 1.92%
ATI Inc 1.23%SLB N.V. 1.56%

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 Apr 30, 2026 and Jun 30, 2026.

CGBL and QUAL on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
QUAL
iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitaliShares
What it isCore BalancedMSCI USA Quality Factor
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+16.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts−1.5 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%98.9%
Holdings77121

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%.

QUAL in plain words

QUAL is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Quality Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 121 positions, with the top ten at 39.1%. It sat 3.1% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or QUAL?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and QUAL returned +16.0%, so QUAL returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or QUAL?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and QUAL charges 0.15%, so QUAL is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and QUAL overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 99% of QUAL by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 14% 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 QUAL, 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 QUAL, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-QUAL Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources