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

In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and TLT returned −6.4%, so CGBL returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.

Which is cheaper, CGBL or TLT?

CGBL charges 0.33% a year and TLT charges 0.15%, so TLT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

CGBL vs TLT: how they differ

CGBL and TLT hold 0% of their weight in the same names, and CGBL returned more over the year.

Capital Group Core Balanced ETF and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGBL and TLT hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGBL	Only in TLT
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF 23.22%	TREASURY BOND (2OLD) 4.16%
Capital Group Core Bond ETF 15.60%	TREASURY BOND (OLD) 4.05%
Broadcom Inc 4.57%	TREASURY BOND (OTR) 1.03%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 3.48%	TREASURY BOND 0.02%
Alphabet Inc 2.78%
Micron Technology Inc 2.23%
Philip Morris International Inc 2.07%
Apple Inc 2.00%

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 and Sep 10, 2026.

CGBL and TLT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
	CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	TLT iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF
Where it sits	Core index fund	Core index fund
Issuer	Capital Group	iShares
What it is	Core Balanced	20+ year Treasuries
Total return, 1 year	+9.9%	−6.4%
S&P 500 over the same days	+17.5%	+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500	−7.6 pts	−23.9 pts
Expense ratio	0.33%	0.15%
Holdings	77	41

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%.

TLT in plain words

TLT is a bond fund tracking the 20+ year Treasuries. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −6.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. It sat 42.9% below its high of Aug 4, 2020 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGBL or TLT?: In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGBL returned +9.9% and TLT returned −6.4%, so CGBL returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGBL or TLT?: CGBL charges 0.33% a year and TLT charges 0.15%, so TLT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

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 TLT, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 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 TLT, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cgbl-vs-tlt Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources