Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
CGBL vs EMXC: Differences, Returns & Fees
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, CGBL returned +7.1% to EMXC's +33.8%; 3% of their weight is in the same names.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about CGBL and EMXC
Net assets: $7.9bn on Oct 27, 2026 for Capital Group Core Balanced ETF, and $26.9bn on Oct 28, 2026 for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF.
Pair scorecard
EMXC costs 0.08 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 26.7 points; EMXC is 3.3 times larger.
| Measure | CGBL | EMXC |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +7.1% | +33.8% |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its high | 3.4%, high on Aug 13, 2026 | 11.3%, high on Jun 22, 2026 |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | No index, actively managed | MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.25% |
| Net assets, as of Oct 27, 2026 | $7.9bn | $26.4bn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 3% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 59.3% | 42.2% |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Jun 30, 2026 and Oct 27, 2026. Method
Risk and return
Oct 6, 2023 to Oct 23, 2026 · 159 weekly returnsEMXC returned more: +98.8% to +55.6%. CGBL swung less: 10.4% to 19.4%. CGBL fell less at its worst: −10.0% to −16.0%.
Full scorecard
9 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | CGBL | EMXC | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +55.6% | +98.8% | EMXC | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +15.6% | +25.2% | EMXC | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | +46.8% | +84.6% | EMXC | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 10.4% | 19.4% | CGBL | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 6.7% | 13.1% | CGBL | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −10.0% | −16.0% | CGBL | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | 1.02 | 1.03 | Tie | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | 1.58 | 1.52 | CGBL (slight) | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Calmar | 1.55 | 1.57 | Tie | 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.
What they share
By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and EMXC hold 3% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Jun 30, 2026 and Oct 27, 2026.
half
3% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Side by side
CGBL and EMXC on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
No client brief for this pair: the two funds' holdings are dated 119 days apart.
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.
EMXC
EMXC tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +33.8% with distributions reinvested, against +37.0% for its benchmark, the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.25% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 27, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 696 positions, with the top ten at 42.2%. It sat 11.3% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or EMXC?
- In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +7.1% and EMXC +33.8%.
- Which is cheaper, CGBL or EMXC?
- EMXC is cheaper, by 0.08 percentage points a year. That is about $8 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Links are sources, not endorsements. A comparison is not a recommendation.
How this is computed
Overlap adds up the smaller of the two weights for each security both funds hold.
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown
ETFIQ, CGBL against EMXC, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cgbl-vs-emxc
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). CGBL against EMXC. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cgbl-vs-emxc
[CGBL against EMXC (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cgbl-vs-emxc)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.