CGBL vs CSQ
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF vs Calamos Strategic Total Return Fund
Which is better, CGBL or CSQ?
CSQ has been ahead.
CGBL has a lower expense ratio. CSQ led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGBL | CSQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.33%Best | 2.03% |
| AUM | $7.8B | $5.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.94% | 1.93% |
| Holdings | 155 | 816 |
| YTD Return | +4.99% | +10.46%Best |
| 1Y Return | +7.78% | +13.57%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.55% | +21.82%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +10.22% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 9.2%Best | 17.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -11.7%Best | -24.2% |
| $10,000 over 3 years | $15,504 | $17,558Best |
| Fund Family | Capital Group (US) | Calamos Investments |
| Category | Allocation/Balanced | Allocation/Balanced |
| Style | Equity-oriented Balanced | Equity-oriented Balanced |
| Inception | Sep 26, 2023 | Mar 26, 2004 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 28, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3 years).
CGBL vs CSQ growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 3 years both funds cover.
CGBL vs CSQ Performance
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) is an ETF from Capital Group (US) and Calamos Strategic Total Return Fund (CSQ) is an ETF from Calamos Investments. Over the past year CGBL returned +7.78% while CSQ returned +13.57%. Year to date, CGBL is up 4.99% versus a gain of 10.46% for CSQ.
Over three years, CGBL compounded at +15.55% per year against +21.82% for CSQ.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CSQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.3% compared with 9.2% for CGBL. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -11.7% for CGBL and -24.2% for CSQ. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.92. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGBL charges 0.33% per year while CSQ charges 2.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $33 vs $203 annually, a gap of $170 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGBL currently yields 1.94% against 1.93% for CSQ.
Holdings Overlap
At least 32.3% of CGBL's money is in holdings CSQ also owns.
Stated as a floor: for CSQ, our book for it covers 93.6% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
The two holdings books were reported 245 days apart, CGBL as of Oct 3, 2026 and CSQ as of Jan 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
36 positions in common, counted across the 77 positions we hold weights for in CGBL and 452 in CSQ, against full books of 155 and 816.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in CGBL | Weight in CSQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 2.34% | 4.77% | 2.43% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 2.53% | 4.08% | 1.55% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.43% | 2.12% | 2.31% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 0.77% | 5.26% | 4.49% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.88% | 3.31% | 2.43% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.20% | 2.18% | 0.98% |
| PMPhilip Morris International Inc. | 2.23% | 0.54% | 1.69% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.63% | 0.89% | 0.74% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 1.03% | 1.04% | 0.01% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 0.34% | 1.68% | 1.34% |
32.3% of CGBL is already inside CSQ.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGBL or CSQ?
CGBL has an expense ratio of 0.33% while CSQ charges 2.03%. CGBL is the cheaper option, by $170 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CGBL or CSQ?
Over the past year CGBL returned +7.78% vs +13.57% for CSQ, so CSQ leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CGBL or CSQ?
CSQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 9.2% for CGBL. Worst drawdown: CGBL -11.7% vs CSQ -24.2%.
Should I hold both CGBL and CSQ?
CGBL and CSQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CGBL and CSQ?
At least 32.3% of CGBL's money is in holdings CSQ also owns. Our book for CSQ is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 36 positions in common, counted across the 77 positions we hold weights for in CGBL and 452 in CSQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGBL or CSQ?
CGBL yields 1.94% while CSQ yields 1.93%, so CGBL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is CSQ better than CGBL?
CGBL has a lower expense ratio. CSQ led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.