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 XLK: how they differ

CGBL and XLK hold 15% of their weight in the same names, and XLK returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and State Street(R) Technology Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and XLK hold 15% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and XLK both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLXLK
Broadcom Inc4.57%5.41%
Micron Technology Inc2.23%5.42%
Apple Inc2.00%12.86%
Microsoft Corp1.96%8.38%
NVIDIA Corp1.19%14.66%
KLA Corp1.08%2.20%
Intel Corp0.91%3.68%
International Business Machines Corp0.41%1.47%
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co0.33%0.33%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in XLK
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%Advanced Micro Devices Inc 5.28%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%Applied Materials Inc 3.20%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%Lam Research Corp 3.02%
Alphabet Inc 2.78%Cisco Systems Inc 2.59%
Philip Morris International Inc 2.07%Sandisk Corp 1.88%
GE Vernova Inc 1.25%Palo Alto Networks Inc 1.54%
ATI Inc 1.23%Texas Instruments Inc 1.51%
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc 1.20%Palantir Technologies Inc 1.49%

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 XLK on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
XLK
State Street(R) Technology Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalState Street
What it isCore BalancedTechnology
Total return, 1 year+9.9%+39.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts+21.7 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%100.0%
Holdings7774

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%.

XLK in plain words

XLK is an index equity fund tracking the Technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +39.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% 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 74 positions, with the top ten at 64.5%. It sat 5.2% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or XLK?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and XLK returned +39.2%, so XLK returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or XLK?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and XLK charges 0.08%, so XLK is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and XLK overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 100% of XLK by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 15% 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 XLK, 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 XLK, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-XLK Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources