CGVV vs. CGBL

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

CGVV (Capital Group U.S. Large Value ETF) and CGBL (Capital Group Core Balanced ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGVV is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Capital Group, while CGBL is a Allocation--50% to 70% Equity fund actively managed by Capital Group. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CGVV returned 19.83% vs 13.38% for CGBL. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.33% expense ratio.

Performance

CGVV vs. CGBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group U.S. Large Value ETF (CGVV) and Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGVV achieves a 14.38% return, which is significantly higher than CGBL's 6.80% return.

CGVV

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: 0.62%
• 6M: 10.00%
• YTD: 14.38%
• 1Y: 19.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CGBL

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 0.25%
• 6M: 4.15%
• YTD: 6.80%
• 1Y: 13.38%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGVV vs. CGBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CGVV Capital Group U.S. Large Value ETF	14.38%	6.55%
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	6.80%	8.65%

Correlation

The correlation between CGVV and CGBL is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025	0.79

The correlation between CGVV and CGBL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CGVV vs. CGBL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CGVV

CGVV Risk / Return Rank: 51
CGVV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
CGVV Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
CGVV Omega Ratio Rank: 48
CGVV Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
CGVV Martin Ratio Rank: 56

CGBL

CGBL Risk / Return Rank: 47
CGBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
CGBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
CGBL Omega Ratio Rank: 46
CGBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
CGBL Martin Ratio Rank: 54

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

CGVV vs. CGBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group U.S. Large Value ETF (CGVV) and Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	CGVV	CGBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.43	1.31	+0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.05	1.90	+0.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.24	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.97	1.71	+0.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.69	7.36	+0.33

CGVV vs. CGBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGVV Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is comparable to the CGBL Sharpe Ratio of 1.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGVV and CGBL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

CGVV vs. CGBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGVV drawdown since its inception was -10.11%, smaller than the maximum CGBL drawdown of -11.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGVV and CGBL.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGVV	CGBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.11%	-11.66%	+1.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.11%	-7.88%	-2.23%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.78%	-1.45%	+0.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.56%	-1.28%	-0.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.59%	1.82%	+0.77%

Volatility

CGVV vs. CGBL - Volatility Comparison

Capital Group U.S. Large Value ETF (CGVV) has a higher volatility of 3.78% compared to Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) at 3.04%. This indicates that CGVV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGVV	CGBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.78%	3.04%	+0.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.65%	8.63%	+2.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.90%	10.28%	+3.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.72%	11.13%	+2.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.72%	11.13%	+2.59%

CGVV vs. CGBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CGVV and CGBL have an expense ratio of 0.33%.

Dividends

CGVV vs. CGBL - Dividend Comparison

CGVV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.85%, less than CGBL's 1.87% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	1.87%	1.98%	1.92%	0.48%
CGVV Capital Group U.S. Large Value ETF	0.85%	0.57%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGVV and CGBL in my portfolio?

CGVV and CGBL have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGVV or CGBL?

CGVV has higher volatility (3.78%) compared to CGBL (3.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGVV dropped -10.11% vs CGBL's -11.66%.

Which ETF is better, CGVV or CGBL?

On 1-year performance, CGVV leads with 19.83% vs 13.38% for CGBL. Both ETFs have the same 0.33% expense ratio. On volatility, CGBL has been the lower-risk option at 3.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGVV or CGBL?

Over the 1-year period, CGVV has performed better with a 19.83% return vs 13.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGVV or CGBL?

CGVV and CGBL have the same expense ratio: 0.33% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGVV or CGBL?

CGBL has the higher dividend yield at 1.87%, compared with 0.85% for CGVV.

What is the main difference between CGVV and CGBL?

CGVV is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while CGBL is Allocation--50% to 70% Equity.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGVV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.43 vs 1.31), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.