Screener
LFEQ vs CGBL
VanEck Long/Flat Trend ETF vs Capital Group Core Balanced ETF
Key differences
- CGBL costs 0.25% less per year.
- CGBL is significantly larger than LFEQ — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- LFEQ is classified as alternative, while CGBL is mixed asset — different risk/return profiles.
- LFEQ follows a tactical allocation strategy; CGBL uses active selection.
- LFEQ has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| LFEQ | CGBL | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.58% | 0.33% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $29M | $6.1B |
| Since | 2017 | 2023 |
| Dividend yield | 0.86% | 1.92% |
| Asset class | alternative | mixed asset |
| Region | north america | — |
| Strategy | tactical allocation | active selection |
| CAGR 1Y | +30.3% | +21.0% |
| CAGR 3Y | +18.9% | N/A |
| CAGR 5Y | +10.4% | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | 1.02 | N/A |
| Volatility 1Y | 12.11% | 9.69% |
| Max drawdown | -35.19% | -11.66% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to LFEQ and CGBL
Explore further