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 VHT: how they differ

CGBL and VHT hold 6% of their weight in the same names, and VHT returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and Vanguard Health Care Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and VHT hold 6% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and VHT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLVHT
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc1.20%1.80%
Gilead Sciences Inc0.74%2.64%
Eli Lilly & Co0.73%14.07%
UnitedHealth Group Inc0.63%5.46%
Amgen Inc0.54%2.87%
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc0.51%0.63%
CVS Health Corp0.48%1.83%
Illumina Inc0.43%0.39%
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc0.31%2.93%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in VHT
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%Johnson & Johnson 8.48%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%AbbVie Inc 6.10%
Broadcom Inc 4.57%Merck & Co Inc 4.67%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%Intuitive Surgical Inc 2.39%
Alphabet Inc 2.78%Abbott Laboratories 2.36%
Micron Technology Inc 2.23%Pfizer Inc 2.36%
Philip Morris International Inc 2.07%Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 1.84%
Apple Inc 2.00%Danaher Corp 1.84%

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 VHT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
VHT
Vanguard Health Care Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalVanguard
What it isCore BalancedHealth Care
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+21.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts+4.1 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.09%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%85.6%
Holdings77401

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%.

VHT in plain words

VHT is an index equity fund tracking the Health Care. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.09% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 86% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 401 positions, with the top ten at 52.0%. It sat 5.7% below its high of Aug 19, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or VHT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and VHT returned +21.6%, so VHT returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or VHT?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and VHT charges 0.09%, so VHT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and VHT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 86% of VHT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 6% 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 VHT, 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 VHT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-VHT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources