CGBL vs QQQ
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, CGBL or QQQ?
Equity-oriented Balanced against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.3%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGBL | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.33% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $7.6B | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.85% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 80 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +6.71% | +16.87%Best |
| 1Y Return | +9.94% | +22.98%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.90% | +24.98%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +14.39% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 9.1%Best | 17.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -11.7%Best | -22.8% |
| $10,000 over 3 years | $15,975 | $20,513Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 59.3% | 46.5%Best |
| Fund Family | Capital Group (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Allocation/Balanced | Equity |
| Style | Equity-oriented Balanced | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Sep 26, 2023 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 28, 2023 to Sep 11, 2026 (3 years).
CGBL vs QQQ growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 3 years both funds cover.
CGBL vs QQQ Performance
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) is an ETF from Capital Group (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CGBL returned +9.94% while QQQ returned +22.98%. Year to date, CGBL is up 6.71% versus a gain of 16.87% for QQQ.
Over three years, CGBL compounded at +16.90% per year against +24.98% for QQQ.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.3% compared with 9.1% 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 -22.8% for QQQ. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.85. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGBL charges 0.33% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $33 vs $18 annually, a gap of $15 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGBL currently yields 1.85% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
24.8% of CGBL's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 54.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings CGBL also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
22 positions in common, counted across the 77 positions we hold weights for in CGBL and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 80 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 74 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for CGBL (42.9% of the fund), and 47 for CGBL that do not appear in QQQ (67.5%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in CGBL | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 2.11% | 7.27% | 5.16% |
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 0.79% | 8.44% | 7.65% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 2.41% | 5.76% | 3.35% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.00% | 3.16% | 1.84% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.90% | 4.43% | 2.53% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.82% | 3.13% | 0.31% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.92% | 4.67% | 3.75% |
| METAMeta Platforms, Inc. | 0.95% | 2.78% | 1.83% |
| INTCIntel Corp. | 0.65% | 2.23% | 1.58% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 0.30% | 2.56% | 2.26% |
54.8% of QQQ is already inside CGBL.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGBL or QQQ?
CGBL has an expense ratio of 0.33% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $15 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CGBL or QQQ?
Over the past year CGBL returned +9.94% vs +22.98% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CGBL or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 9.1% for CGBL. Worst drawdown: CGBL -11.7% vs QQQ -22.8%.
Should I hold both CGBL and QQQ?
CGBL and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.85, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CGBL and QQQ?
54.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings CGBL also owns. 54.8% of QQQ's is in holdings CGBL also owns. They hold 22 positions in common, counted across the 77 positions we hold weights for in CGBL and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGBL or QQQ?
CGBL yields 1.85% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so CGBL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than CGBL?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.