VO vs. CGBL

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

VO (Vanguard Mid-Cap ETF) and CGBL (Capital Group Core Balanced ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - VO is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the CRSP US Mid Cap Index, while CGBL is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Capital Group. VO is passively managed, while CGBL is actively managed. Over the past year, VO returned 16.32% vs 16.11% for CGBL. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. VO charges 0.03%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CGBL.

Performance

VO vs. CGBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Vanguard Mid-Cap ETF (VO) 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, VO achieves a 8.60% return, which is significantly higher than CGBL's 5.41% return.

VO

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 1.75%
• YTD: 8.60%
• 6M: 8.43%
• 1Y: 16.32%
• 3Y*: 15.78%
• 5Y*: 7.59%
• 10Y*: 11.44%

CGBL

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: -0.56%
• YTD: 5.41%
• 6M: 6.40%
• 1Y: 16.11%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

VO vs. CGBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
VO Vanguard Mid-Cap ETF	8.60%	11.62%	15.31%	11.96%
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	5.41%	15.33%	16.64%	9.80%

Correlation

The correlation between VO and CGBL is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2023	0.83

The correlation between VO and CGBL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

VO vs. CGBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	VO	CGBL
Technology	18.6%	29.9%
Industrials	17.9%	16.6%
Financial Services	12.8%	11.8%
Consumer Cyclical	8.6%	8.7%
Energy	8.5%	2.0%
Utilities	8.3%	2.5%
Healthcare	7.6%	8.9%
Real Estate	5.4%	0.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	4.2%
Basic Materials	4.2%	7.2%
Communication Services	3.1%	8.4%

Return for Risk

VO vs. CGBL — Risk / Return Rank

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

VO

VO Risk / Return Rank: 43
VO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
VO Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
VO Omega Ratio Rank: 38
VO Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
VO Martin Ratio Rank: 50

CGBL

CGBL Risk / Return Rank: 52
CGBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
CGBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
CGBL Omega Ratio Rank: 54
CGBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
CGBL Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

VO vs. CGBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard Mid-Cap ETF (VO) 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.

	VO	CGBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.31	1.64	-0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.89	2.34	-0.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.30	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.01	2.05	-0.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.62	9.04	-1.42
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

VO vs. CGBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current VO Sharpe Ratio is 1.31, which is comparable to the CGBL Sharpe Ratio of 1.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of VO 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	VO	CGBL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.31	1.64	-0.33
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.43	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.61	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.50	1.62	-1.12

Drawdowns

VO vs. CGBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum VO drawdown since its inception was -58.87%, which is greater than CGBL's maximum drawdown of -11.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for VO and CGBL.

Drawdown Indicators

	VO	CGBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.87%	-11.66%	-47.21%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.17%	-7.88%	-0.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.02%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.57%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.10%	-2.50%	+0.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.86%	-1.29%	-6.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.15%	1.79%	+0.36%

Volatility

VO vs. CGBL - Volatility Comparison

Vanguard Mid-Cap ETF (VO) and Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) have volatilities of 3.51% and 3.53%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	VO	CGBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.51%	3.53%	-0.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.46%	8.17%	+1.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.51%	9.88%	+2.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.62%	11.09%	+6.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.96%	11.09%	+7.87%

VO vs. CGBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

VO has a 0.03% expense ratio, which is lower than CGBL's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

VO vs. CGBL - Dividend Comparison

VO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.38%, less than CGBL's 1.89% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGBL Capital Group Core Balanced ETF	1.89%	1.98%	1.92%	0.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
VO Vanguard Mid-Cap ETF	1.38%	1.52%	1.49%	1.52%	1.60%	1.12%	1.45%	1.48%	1.82%	1.35%	1.45%	1.47%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both VO and CGBL in my portfolio?

VO and CGBL have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, VO or CGBL?

CGBL has higher volatility (3.53%) compared to VO (3.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, VO dropped -58.87% vs CGBL's -11.66%.

Which ETF is better, VO or CGBL?

On 1-year performance, VO leads with 16.32% vs 16.11% for CGBL. On fees, VO is cheaper at 0.03% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, VO or CGBL?

Over the 1-year period, VO has performed better with a 16.32% return vs 16.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, VO or CGBL?

VO is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CGBL.

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

CGBL has the higher dividend yield at 1.89%, compared with 1.38% for VO.

What is the main difference between VO and CGBL?

VO is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while CGBL is Diversified Portfolio. They also come from different issuers: Vanguard and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.03% for VO and 0.33% for CGBL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGBL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.64 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.