CGBL vs PRF: Holdings Overlap
CGBLCapital Group Core Balanced ETF
Capital Group · 73 holdings · $7.5B · as of 2026-03-31
Invesco · 1003 holdings · $10.0B · as of 2026-04-30
Holdings snapshots are 30 days apart (CGBL: 2026-03-31, PRF: 2026-04-30). Weights and index membership change between snapshots, so the true current overlap is typically higher than shown. For funds tracking the same index, the gap can be 5–15 points.
How similar are CGBL and PRF?
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL, by Capital Group) holds 73 positions; Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF (PRF, by Invesco) holds 1003. They have 59 holdings in common, and by portfolio weight the two funds are 19.7% identical. In practical terms the pair is lightly overlapping, with most of each portfolio distinct.
- Overlap by Weight
- 19.7%Sum of the smaller weight of each shared holding
- Shared Holdings
- 59CGBL holds 73 · PRF holds 1003
- Weight in Shared Holdings
- CGBL 49%·PRF 28%Share of each fund's weight in stocks both funds own
Based on each fund's latest official holdings. How is this calculated?
What makes each fund different
Only in CGBL
14 of 73 positions (49.2% of the fund) are not held by PRF.
Sector Breakdown
| Sector | CGBL | PRF |
|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 16.3% | 20.1% |
| Financials | 9.0% | 16.1% |
| Health Care | 6.1% | 11.7% |
| Communication Services | 4.5% | 10.2% |
| Industrials | 10.2% | 9.5% |
| Other Sectors | 15.8% | 32.4% |
| Unclassified | 36.1% | 0.0% |
Share of each fund's portfolio weight by GICS-style sector, compiled from issuer fund data and our own classification of the holdings, not the issuers' published sector charts. “Unclassified” is weight we could not classify (37% of CGBL, 0% of PRF).
Performance
| Fund | 1M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y (ann.) | 5Y (ann.) | 10Y (ann.) | Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CGBL | +2.1% | +9.5% | +16.6% | — | — | — | 1.83% |
| PRF | +2.9% | +20.0% | +33.4% | +20.5% | +13.5% | +13.8% | 1.33% |
Total returns including dividends, from adjusted daily closes as of 2026-08-07. 3Y/5Y/10Y are annualized. Yield is trailing-12-month distributions over the last close. Past performance does not predict future results.
Project the growth of $10,000 in CGBL vs PRF →
Shared Holdings(59)
The top 10 shared positions account for 50% of the overlap, led by MSFT, AAPL and META.
2.78% | 2.17% | 2.17% | |
1.45% | 4.08% | 1.45% | |
1.21% | 1.42% | 1.21% | |
0.84% | 0.90% | 0.84% | |
0.78% | 2.62% | 0.78% | |
0.76% | 2.32% | 0.76% | |
0.74% | 1.13% | 0.74% | |
4.16% | 0.66% | 0.66% | |
0.59% | 1.55% | 0.59% | |
0.59% | 1.17% | 0.59% | |
0.61% | 0.58% | 0.58% | |
0.57% | 0.62% | 0.57% | |
0.57% | 0.81% | 0.57% | |
1.33% | 0.56% | 0.56% | |
0.85% | 0.49% | 0.49% | |
0.53% | 0.45% | 0.45% | |
0.42% | 0.45% | 0.42% | |
0.71% | 0.38% | 0.38% | |
0.38% | 0.53% | 0.38% | |
1.08% | 0.35% | 0.35% | |
0.39% | 0.33% | 0.33% | |
0.86% | 0.33% | 0.33% | |
0.71% | 0.33% | 0.33% | |
0.84% | 0.32% | 0.32% | |
0.51% | 0.28% | 0.28% |
Frequently Asked Questions
How much do CGBL and PRF overlap?
CGBL and PRF overlap by 19.7% of portfolio weight. They share 59 holdings (CGBL holds 73 positions and PRF holds 1003), based on each fund's latest SEC-reported holdings.
Is it redundant to own both CGBL and PRF?
The two portfolios are 19.7% identical by weight. Owning both is not redundant. Most of each portfolio is distinct, so the funds can serve different roles.
What are the biggest shared holdings of CGBL and PRF?
The largest positions held by both funds are MSFT, AAPL, META, MU and INTC. Together the top 10 shared positions account for 50% of the total overlap.
What does CGBL own that PRF doesn't?
14 positions (49.2% of CGBL) are unique to CGBL, led by CGCP, CGCB and TSM. In the other direction, 944 positions (71.6% of PRF) are unique to PRF.