Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGBL vs RSP: how they differ
CGBL and RSP hold 11% of their weight in the same names, and RSP returned more over the year.
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and RSP hold 11% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGBL | RSP |
|---|---|---|
| Intel Corp | 0.91% | 0.38% |
| Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co | 0.33% | 0.26% |
| UnitedHealth Group Inc | 0.63% | 0.25% |
| Quanta Services Inc | 0.43% | 0.25% |
| GE Vernova Inc | 1.25% | 0.25% |
| Caterpillar Inc | 0.58% | 0.24% |
| Amazon.com Inc | 0.81% | 0.24% |
| Micron Technology Inc | 2.23% | 0.24% |
| United Rentals Inc | 0.44% | 0.24% |
| Broadcom Inc | 4.57% | 0.24% |
| Apollo Global Management Inc | 0.60% | 0.23% |
| KLA Corp | 1.08% | 0.23% |
| Only in CGBL | Only in RSP |
|---|---|
| Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22% | Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.34% |
| Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60% | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 0.33% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48% | ON Semiconductor Corp. 0.33% |
| ATI Inc 1.23% | Sandisk Corp. 0.32% |
| Wheaton Precious Metals Corp 1.03% | Western Digital Corp. 0.31% |
| Royal Gold Inc 0.96% | Ciena Corp. 0.30% |
| Franco-Nevada Corp 0.89% | Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. 0.29% |
| Capital Group Central Cash Fund 0.85% | Centene Corp. 0.29% |
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 | RSP Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | Invesco |
| What it is | Core Balanced | S&P 500 equal weight |
| Total return, 1 year | +9.9% | +14.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −7.6 pts | −2.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.20% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 48.1% | 99.1% |
| Holdings | 77 | 503 |
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%.
RSP in plain words
RSP is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 equal weight. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% 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 503 positions, with the top ten at 3.2%. It sat 3.5% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or RSP?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and RSP returned +14.8%, so RSP returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGBL or RSP?
- CGBL charges 0.33% a year and RSP charges 0.20%, so RSP is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGBL and RSP overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 99% of RSP by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 11% 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 RSP, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-RSP Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources