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 SCHX: how they differ

CGBL and SCHX hold 27% of their weight in the same names, and SCHX returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and SCHX hold 27% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and SCHX both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLSCHX
Broadcom Inc4.57%3.10%
Alphabet Inc2.78%2.58%
Apple Inc2.00%6.71%
Microsoft Corp1.96%4.89%
Micron Technology Inc2.23%1.60%
NVIDIA Corp1.19%7.51%
Meta Platforms Inc1.10%2.02%
Amazon.com Inc0.81%3.87%
Visa Inc0.92%0.80%
Intel Corp0.91%0.79%
Eli Lilly & Co0.73%1.28%
Caterpillar Inc0.58%0.60%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in SCHX
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%Alphabet Inc 3.24%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%Tesla Inc 1.79%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 1.27%
ATI Inc 1.23%Advanced Micro Devices Inc 1.23%
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp 1.03%Exxon Mobil Corp 0.89%
Franco-Nevada Corp 0.89%Johnson & Johnson 0.80%
Capital Group Central Cash Fund 0.85%Walmart Inc 0.74%
Lundin Mining Corp 0.65%Cisco Systems Inc 0.70%

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 SCHX on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
SCHX
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalSchwab
What it isCore BalancedU.S. Large-Cap
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+16.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts−0.7 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.03%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%94.9%
Holdings77748

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%.

SCHX in plain words

SCHX is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Large-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 748 positions, with the top ten at 37.3%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or SCHX?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and SCHX returned +16.8%, so SCHX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or SCHX?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and SCHX charges 0.03%, so SCHX is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and SCHX overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 95% of SCHX by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 27% 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 SCHX, 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 SCHX, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-SCHX Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources