Which returned more over the last year, BWET or CGBL?

In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, BWET returned +5,121.7% and CGBL +7.1%.

Which is cheaper, BWET or CGBL?

CGBL is cheaper, by 4.35 percentage points a year. That is about $435 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's own filings.

Data as of Oct 28, 2026.

Across categories

BWET vs CGBL: Differences, Returns & Fees

Share on X Download as PDF

BWET is a commodity futures fund and CGBL an actively managed equity fund, and over the year to Oct 28, 2026, BWET returned +5,121.7% against +7.1%.

askIQ about this page

askIQ about BWET and CGBL

Net assets: $178m on Oct 28, 2026 for Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF, and $7.9bn on Oct 27, 2026 for Capital Group Core Balanced ETF.

BWET on its own →CGBL on its own →

At a glance

+5,121.7%

BWET total return, 1 year

+7.1%

CGBL total return, 1 year

4.68%

BWET expense ratio

0.33%

CGBL expense ratio

Pair scorecard

CGBL costs 4.35 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 5114.6 points; CGBL is far larger, $7.9bn against $186m.

BWET vs CGBL: Differences, Returns & Fees
Measure	BWET	CGBL
Return
Measure	BWET	CGBL
Total return, 1 year	+5,121.7%	+7.1%
Drawdown
Measure	BWET	CGBL
Below its high	11.2%, high on Oct 8, 2026	3.4%, high on Aug 13, 2026
Benchmark
Measure	BWET	CGBL
What it tracks	Tanker freight futures	No index, actively managed
Cost and size
Measure	BWET	CGBL
Expense ratio	4.68%	0.33%
Net assets, as of Oct 26, 2026	$186m	$7.9bn
Holdings
Measure	BWET	CGBL
Holdings in common	not published
In the S&P 500, by weight		48%
Holdings dated		Jun 30, 2026
Top ten holdings, share of the fund		59.3%

Method

Risk and return

Oct 6, 2023 to Oct 23, 2026 · 159 weekly returns

BWET CGBL

Return

Total return edge BWET +6,313.5% +55.6%

Annualized edge BWET +289.9% +15.6%

Price return edge BWET +6,313.5% +46.8%

Risk

Volatility edge CGBL 89.3% 10.4%

Max drawdown edge CGBL −55.9% −10.0%

Risk-adjusted

Sharpe edge BWET 1.90 1.02

Sortino edge BWET 4.29 1.58

Calmar edge BWET 5.19 1.55

Reading

BWET returned more: +6,313.5% to +55.6%. CGBL swung less: 10.4% to 89.3%. CGBL fell less at its worst: −10.0% to −55.9%.

Full scorecard

9 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓

Risk and return: BWET vs CGBL: Differences, Returns & Fees
Measure	BWET	CGBL	Edge	How it is measured
Return
Total return	+6,313.5%	+55.6%	BWET	Price change plus distributions, reinvested.
Annualized	+289.9%	+15.6%	BWET	Total return as a yearly rate.
Price return	+6,313.5%	+46.8%	BWET	Price change alone, distributions left out.
Risk
Volatility	89.3%	10.4%	CGBL	Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier.
Downside deviation	39.6%	6.7%	CGBL	Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate.
Max drawdown	−55.9%	−10.0%	CGBL	Deepest fall from a high to the low after it.
Risk-adjusted
Sharpe	1.90	1.02	BWET	Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility.
Sortino	4.29	1.58	BWET	Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation.
Calmar	5.19	1.55	BWET	Annualized return divided by the max drawdown.

Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 159 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.

Side by side

BWET Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF

Where it sits Commodity ETF Allocation ETF

Issuer Breakwave Capital Group

What it is Holds tanker freight futures Actively managed

Total return, 1 year +5,121.7% +7.1%

Its benchmark over the same days not measured +7.5% (VOO and AGG)

Gap to its benchmark not measured −0.4 pts vs VOO and AGG

Expense ratio 4.68% 0.33%

Holdings not counted 77

Net assets, BWET as of Oct 28, 2026 and CGBL as of Oct 27, 2026 $178m $7.9bn

BWET and CGBL on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

Client brief

No client brief for this pair: ETFIQ prints no one-year total return for BWET.

Alert

About each fund

BWET

Its expense ratio is 4.68%, for the year to Jun 30, 2026, as its 10-K states.

BWET holds tanker freight futures. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +5,121.7% with distributions reinvested. It sat 11.2% below its high of Oct 8, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.

CGBL

Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +7.1% with distributions reinvested, against +7.5% for its benchmark, the 60%/40% S&P 500 Index/Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Index.

CGBL is actively managed and tracks no index. 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 59.3%. It sat 3.4% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, BWET or CGBL?: In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, BWET returned +5,121.7% and CGBL +7.1%.
Which is cheaper, BWET or CGBL?: CGBL is cheaper, by 4.35 percentage points a year. That is about $435 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's own filings.

Other comparisons

AOR vs BWET BWET vs PDBC BWET vs XLRE BWET vs XLB CGBL vs USO CGBL vs SLV CGBL vs GLDM CGBL vs IAU

Where to next

BWET on its own →CGBL on its own →Hold both: look the portfolio through →Rankings →CGBL dividend history →CGBL holdings →Standards and sources →

Sources and dates

Breakwave page for BWET ↗

CGBL filings on SEC EDGAR ↗

CGBL prospectus with the expense ratio (SEC) ↗

Capital Group page for CGBL ↗

Links are sources, not endorsements. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown

ETFIQ, BWET against CGBL, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/bwet-vs-cgbl

Open data →

Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.