Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
CGBL vs IWF: Differences, Returns & Fees
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, CGBL returned +7.1% to IWF's +0.9%; 24% of their weight is in the same names.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about CGBL and IWF
Net assets on Oct 27, 2026: $7.9bn for Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and $124.7bn for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF.
Pair scorecard
IWF costs 0.15 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 6.2 points; IWF is 15.8 times larger.
| Measure | CGBL | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +7.1% | +0.9% |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its high | 3.4%, high on Aug 13, 2026 | 4.8%, high on Oct 6, 2026 |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | No index, actively managed | Russell 1000 Growth Index |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.18% |
| Net assets, as of Oct 27, 2026 | $7.9bn | $124.7bn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 24% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 59.3% | 57.5% |
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 returnsIWF returned more: +78.6% to +55.6%. CGBL swung less: 10.4% to 18.9%. CGBL fell less at its worst: −10.0% to −21.7%.
Full scorecard
9 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | CGBL | IWF | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +55.6% | +78.6% | IWF | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +15.6% | +20.9% | IWF | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | +46.8% | +76.2% | IWF | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 10.4% | 18.9% | CGBL | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 6.7% | 12.1% | CGBL | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −10.0% | −21.7% | CGBL | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | 1.02 | 0.86 | CGBL | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | 1.58 | 1.35 | CGBL | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Calmar | 1.55 | 0.96 | CGBL | 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 IWF hold 24% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Jun 30, 2026 and Oct 27, 2026.
half
24% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Side by side
CGBL and IWF 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.
IWF
IWF tracks the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +0.9% with distributions reinvested, against +1.1% for its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 27, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 374 positions, with the top ten at 57.5%. It sat 4.8% below its high of Oct 6, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or IWF?
- In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +7.1% and IWF +0.9%.
- Which is cheaper, CGBL or IWF?
- IWF is cheaper, by 0.15 percentage points a year. That is about $15 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 IWF, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cgbl-vs-iwf
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). CGBL against IWF. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cgbl-vs-iwf
[CGBL against IWF (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cgbl-vs-iwf)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.