Screener
GPZ vs CGBL
VanEck Alternative Asset Manager ETF vs Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
Key differences
- CGBL costs 0.07% less per year.
- CGBL is significantly larger than GPZ — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- GPZ is classified as equity, while CGBL is mixed asset — different risk/return profiles.
- GPZ follows a index tracking strategy; CGBL uses active selection.
Side-by-side comparison
| GPZ | CGBL | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.40% | 0.33% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $245M | $6.1B |
| Since | 2025 | 2023 |
| Dividend yield | — | 1.92% |
| Asset class | equity | mixed asset |
| Region | — | — |
| Strategy | index tracking | active selection |
| CAGR 1Y | N/A | +21.0% |
| CAGR 3Y | N/A | N/A |
| CAGR 5Y | N/A | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | N/A | N/A |
| Volatility 1Y | — | 9.69% |
| Max drawdown | -31.72% | -11.66% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to GPZ and CGBL
Explore further