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 VXUS: how they differ

CGBL and VXUS hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and VXUS returned more over the year.

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

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and VXUS hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and VXUS both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLVXUS
Safran SA0.30%0.26%
Cie Financiere Richemont SA0.45%0.24%
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd0.56%0.23%
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp1.03%0.14%
Franco-Nevada Corp0.89%0.10%
Lundin Mining Corp0.65%0.04%
First Quantum Minerals Ltd0.45%0.04%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in VXUS
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.97%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 1.67%
Broadcom Inc 4.57%ASML Holding NV 1.32%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%SK hynix Inc 1.14%
Alphabet Inc 2.78%Tencent Holdings Ltd 0.89%
Micron Technology Inc 2.23%HSBC Holdings PLC 0.74%
Philip Morris International Inc 2.07%Alibaba Group Holding Ltd 0.69%
Apple Inc 2.00%AstraZeneca PLC 0.67%

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 VXUS on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
VXUS
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalVanguard
What it isCore BalancedTotal International Stock
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+22.3%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts+4.8 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.05%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%0.0%
Holdings778775

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%.

VXUS in plain words

VXUS is an index equity fund tracking the Total International Stock. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.05% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 8775 positions, with the top ten at 12.4%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or VXUS?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and VXUS returned +22.3%, so VXUS returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or VXUS?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and VXUS charges 0.05%, so VXUS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and VXUS overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 0% of VXUS by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% 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 VXUS, 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 VXUS, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-VXUS Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources