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 XLY: how they differ

CGBL and XLY hold 5% of their weight in the same names, and CGBL returned more over the year.

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

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and XLY hold 5% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGBL and XLY both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGBLXLY
Booking Holdings Inc1.10%3.44%
Amazon.com Inc0.81%22.24%
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd0.55%1.97%
Home Depot Inc/The0.50%5.83%
DR Horton Inc0.48%1.07%
Darden Restaurants Inc0.42%0.59%
Starbucks Corp0.38%2.90%
Carnival Corp Ltd0.36%0.92%
NIKE Inc0.23%1.23%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBLOnly in XLY
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%Tesla Inc 19.66%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%McDonald's Corp 4.16%
Broadcom Inc 4.57%TJX Cos Inc/The 3.93%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%Lowe's Cos Inc 3.08%
Alphabet Inc 2.78%Marriott International Inc/MD 2.02%
Micron Technology Inc 2.23%O'Reilly Automotive Inc 1.90%
Philip Morris International Inc 2.07%Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc 1.87%
Apple Inc 2.00%DoorDash Inc 1.74%

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 XLY on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGBL
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
XLY
State Street(R) Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalState Street
What it isCore BalancedConsumer discretionary
Total return, 1 year+9.9%−4.1%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−7.6 pts−21.6 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50048.1%100.0%
Holdings7747

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%.

XLY in plain words

XLY is an index equity fund tracking the Consumer discretionary. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −4.1% 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 47 positions, with the top ten at 69.2%. It sat 8.9% below its high of Jan 12, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or XLY?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and XLY returned −4.1%, so CGBL returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or XLY?
CGBL charges 0.33% a year and XLY charges 0.08%, so XLY is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGBL and XLY overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 48% of CGBL and 100% of XLY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 5% 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 XLY, 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 XLY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGBL-XLY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources