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 SDY: how they differ

CGBL and SDY hold 4% of their weight in the same names, and SDY returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Dividend ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and SDY hold 4% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and SDY both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLSDY
Southern Co/The0.97%1.33%
Caterpillar Inc0.58%0.47%
International Business Machines Corp0.41%1.27%
Microsoft Corp1.96%0.36%
Brown & Brown Inc0.35%0.39%
L3Harris Technologies Inc0.29%0.52%
Royal Gold Inc0.96%0.25%
NIKE Inc0.23%1.15%
Costco Wholesale Corp0.32%0.20%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in SDY
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%Verizon Communications Inc 2.15%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%Realty Income Corp 2.14%
Broadcom Inc 4.57%Kenvue Inc 1.76%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%Kimberly-Clark Corp 1.75%
Alphabet Inc 2.78%AbbVie Inc 1.63%
Micron Technology Inc 2.23%QUALCOMM Inc 1.57%
Philip Morris International Inc 2.07%Texas Instruments Inc 1.56%
Apple Inc 2.00%Target Corp 1.55%

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 and SDY on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
SDY
State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Dividend ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalState Street
What it isCore BalancedSPDR S&P Dividend
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+11.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts−6.5 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.35%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%84.6%
Holdings77155

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%.

SDY in plain words

SDY is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR S&P Dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +11.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.35% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 85% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 155 positions, with the top ten at 17.1%. It sat 3.9% below its high of Aug 24, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or SDY?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and SDY returned +11.0%, so SDY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or SDY?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and SDY charges 0.35%, so CGBL is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and SDY overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 85% of SDY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 4% 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 SDY, 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 SDY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-SDY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources