CGBL vs IVV
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGBL | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.33% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $7.6B | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.88% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 163 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +8.38% | +12.71% | |
| 1Y Return | +15.74% | +21.89% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.89% | +22.08% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.96% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 9.2% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -11.7% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Capital Group (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Allocation/Balanced | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 26, 2023 | May 15, 2000 |
CGBL vs IVV Performance
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) is a ETF from Capital Group (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year CGBL returned +15.74% while IVV returned +21.89%. Year to date, CGBL is up 8.38% versus a gain of 12.71% for IVV.
Over three years, CGBL compounded at +17.89% per year against +22.08% for IVV. Across the full 3-year window we track, CGBL has the edge at +17.89% annualized vs +7.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 9.2% for CGBL. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -11.7% for CGBL and -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.93. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGBL charges 0.33% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $33 vs $3 annually, a gap of $30 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGBL currently yields 1.88% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
CGBL and IVV share 57 holdings out of 525 unique holdings combined, representing a 27.3% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGBL or IVV?
CGBL has an expense ratio of 0.33% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $30 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGBL or IVV?
Over the past year CGBL returned +15.74% vs +21.89% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (3 years), CGBL annualized +17.89% vs +7.00% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGBL or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 9.2% for CGBL. Worst drawdown: CGBL -11.7% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both CGBL and IVV?
CGBL and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between CGBL and IVV?
CGBL and IVV share 57 common holdings with a 27.3% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 525 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGBL or IVV?
CGBL yields 1.88% while IVV yields 1.10%, so CGBL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.