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 SPMO: how they differ

CGBL and SPMO hold 18% of their weight in the same names, and SPMO returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and SPMO hold 18% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and SPMO both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLSPMO
Broadcom Inc4.57%7.58%
Alphabet Inc2.78%3.81%
Micron Technology Inc2.23%10.72%
Philip Morris International Inc2.07%1.29%
GE Vernova Inc1.25%1.33%
NVIDIA Corp1.19%8.46%
KLA Corp1.08%1.39%
Intel Corp0.91%2.95%
Gilead Sciences Inc0.74%0.83%
Caterpillar Inc0.58%2.60%
General Electric Co0.52%1.63%
Quanta Services Inc0.43%0.48%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in SPMO
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%Alphabet Inc. 4.81%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 4.14%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%Johnson & Johnson 3.85%
Apple Inc 2.00%Lam Research Corp. 3.54%
Microsoft Corp 1.96%Exxon Mobil Corp. 2.78%
ATI Inc 1.23%Sandisk Corp. 2.46%
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc 1.20%Cisco Systems, Inc. 2.02%
Booking Holdings Inc 1.10%Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 1.88%

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 SPMO on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
SPMO
Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalInvesco
What it isCore BalancedS&P 500 Momentum
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+24.5%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts+7.0 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.13%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%100.0%
Holdings7799

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%.

SPMO in plain words

SPMO is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 Momentum. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +24.5% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.13% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 99 positions, with the top ten at 52.6%. It sat 8.3% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or SPMO?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and SPMO returned +24.5%, so SPMO returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or SPMO?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and SPMO charges 0.13%, so SPMO is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and SPMO overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 100% of SPMO by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 18% 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 SPMO, 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 SPMO, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-SPMO Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources