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 VT: how they differ

CGBL and VT hold 19% of their weight in the same names, and VT returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and VT hold 19% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and VT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLVT
Apple Inc2.00%3.53%
Microsoft Corp1.96%2.73%
Broadcom Inc4.57%1.74%
Alphabet Inc2.78%1.61%
NVIDIA Corp1.19%4.22%
Meta Platforms Inc1.10%1.21%
Amazon.com Inc0.81%2.29%
Eli Lilly & Co0.73%0.68%
Micron Technology Inc2.23%0.52%
Visa Inc0.92%0.50%
JPMorgan Chase & Co0.39%0.72%
Intel Corp0.91%0.38%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in VT
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%Alphabet Inc 2.04%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 1.52%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%Tesla Inc 0.97%
Capital Group Central Cash Fund 0.85%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 0.69%
Aon PLC 0.84%Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 0.64%
ASML Holding NV 0.62%Exxon Mobil Corp 0.59%
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 0.55%Walmart Inc 0.52%
Carnival Corp Ltd 0.36%Advanced Micro Devices Inc 0.52%

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 Apr 30, 2026 and Jun 30, 2026.

CGBL and VT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
VT
Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalVanguard
What it isCore BalancedTotal World Stock
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+18.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts+1.4 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.06%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%55.2%
Holdings7710042

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%.

VT in plain words

VT is an index equity fund tracking the Total World Stock. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +18.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.06% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 55% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 10042 positions, with the top ten at 21.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or VT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and VT returned +18.9%, so VT returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or VT?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and VT charges 0.06%, so VT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and VT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 55% of VT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 19% 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 VT, 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 VT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-VT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources