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 VONG: how they differ

CGBL and VONG hold 22% of their weight in the same names, and CGBL returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and VONG hold 22% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and VONG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLVONG
Broadcom Inc4.57%5.78%
Alphabet Inc2.78%3.15%
Apple Inc2.00%11.97%
Microsoft Corp1.96%8.98%
NVIDIA Corp1.19%13.09%
Meta Platforms Inc1.10%3.20%
Visa Inc0.92%1.57%
Amazon.com Inc0.81%5.07%
GE Vernova Inc1.25%0.79%
KLA Corp1.08%0.76%
Eli Lilly & Co0.73%2.67%
General Electric Co0.52%1.02%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in VONG
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%Alphabet Inc 3.91%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%Tesla Inc 3.48%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%Advanced Micro Devices Inc 1.47%
Micron Technology Inc 2.23%Lam Research Corp 1.21%
Philip Morris International Inc 2.07%AbbVie Inc 1.16%
ATI Inc 1.23%Oracle Corp 1.15%
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp 1.03%Netflix Inc 1.10%
Southern Co/The 0.97%Palantir Technologies Inc 1.03%

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 VONG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
VONG
Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalVanguard
What it isCore BalancedRussell 1000 Growth
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+7.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts−10.3 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.07%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%95.6%
Holdings77387

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%.

VONG in plain words

VONG is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 96% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 387 positions, with the top ten at 61.3%. It sat 4.9% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or VONG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and VONG returned +7.2%, so CGBL returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or VONG?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and VONG charges 0.07%, so VONG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and VONG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 96% of VONG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 22% 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 VONG, 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 VONG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-VONG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources