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 SPYG: how they differ

CGBL and SPYG hold 25% of their weight in the same names, and SPYG returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and State Street(R) SPDR(R) Portfolio S&P 500(R) Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and SPYG hold 25% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and SPYG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLSPYG
Broadcom Inc4.57%5.04%
Alphabet Inc2.78%4.71%
Micron Technology Inc2.23%3.67%
Apple Inc2.00%5.99%
Microsoft Corp1.96%7.81%
NVIDIA Corp1.19%13.66%
Meta Platforms Inc1.10%3.49%
KLA Corp1.08%1.11%
GE Vernova Inc1.25%0.89%
Visa Inc0.92%0.88%
Amazon.com Inc0.81%3.48%
Eli Lilly & Co0.73%2.67%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in SPYG
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%Alphabet Inc 5.91%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%Advanced Micro Devices Inc 2.67%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 2.58%
ATI Inc 1.23%Tesla Inc 2.07%
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc 1.20%Applied Materials Inc 1.62%
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp 1.03%Lam Research Corp 1.53%
Southern Co/The 0.97%Johnson & Johnson 1.02%
Bank of America Corp 0.96%Sandisk Corp 0.95%

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 SPYG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
SPYG
State Street(R) SPDR(R) Portfolio S&P 500(R) Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalState Street
What it isCore BalancedSPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+17.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts+0.4 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.04%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%100.0%
Holdings77147

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%.

SPYG in plain words

SPYG is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 147 positions, with the top ten at 56.4%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or SPYG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and SPYG returned +17.9%, so SPYG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or SPYG?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and SPYG charges 0.04%, so SPYG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and SPYG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 100% of SPYG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 25% 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 SPYG, 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 SPYG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-SPYG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources