Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGBL vs RDVY: how they differ
CGBL and RDVY hold 14% of their weight in the same names, and RDVY returned more over the year.
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and RDVY hold 14% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGBL | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| Micron Technology Inc | 2.23% | 1.83% |
| Microsoft Corp | 1.96% | 1.45% |
| Apple Inc | 2.00% | 1.44% |
| GE Vernova Inc | 1.25% | 2.80% |
| NVIDIA Corp | 1.19% | 1.91% |
| Booking Holdings Inc | 1.10% | 1.18% |
| Meta Platforms Inc | 1.10% | 1.50% |
| KLA Corp | 1.08% | 4.14% |
| Bank of America Corp | 0.96% | 1.96% |
| Visa Inc | 0.92% | 1.82% |
| General Electric Co | 0.52% | 2.13% |
| Mastercard Inc | 0.51% | 1.19% |
| Only in CGBL | Only in RDVY |
|---|---|
| Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22% | APPLIED MATERIALS INC 4.69% |
| Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60% | LAM RESEARCH CORP 4.42% |
| Broadcom Inc 4.57% | BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP (THE) 2.15% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48% | ALPHABET INC 2.12% |
| Alphabet Inc 2.78% | WILLIAMS SONOMA INC 2.12% |
| Philip Morris International Inc 2.07% | ROSS STORES INC 2.01% |
| ATI Inc 1.23% | ALLSTATE CORP (THE) 2.01% |
| Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc 1.20% | TRAVELERS COMPANIES INC (THE) 2.00% |
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 | RDVY First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | First Trust |
| What it is | Core Balanced | First Rising Dividend Achievers |
| Total return, 1 year | +9.9% | +22.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −7.6 pts | +4.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.47% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 48.1% | 94.4% |
| Holdings | 77 | 71 |
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%.
RDVY in plain words
RDVY is an index equity fund tracking the First Rising Dividend Achievers. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.47% 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 71 positions, with the top ten at 28.6%. It sat 3.9% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or RDVY?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and RDVY returned +22.0%, so RDVY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGBL or RDVY?
- CGBL charges 0.33% a year and RDVY charges 0.47%, so CGBL is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGBL and RDVY overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 94% of RDVY 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, CGBL against RDVY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-RDVY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources