CGBL vs RILA
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF vs Indexperts Gorilla Aggressive Growth ETF
Which is better, CGBL or RILA?
Each has led over a different period.
CGBL has a lower expense ratio. CGBL led over 1Y, RILA over the full window. RILA is less concentrated, with 38.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.0%.
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 | RILA |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.33%Best | 0.50% |
| AUM | $7.8B | $46M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.94% | 0.12% |
| Holdings | 155 | 342 |
| YTD Return | +4.99% | +6.72%Best |
| 1Y Return | +7.78%Best | +4.95% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.55% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 9.3%Best | 15.0% |
| Max Drawdown | -11.7%Best | -20.0% |
| $10,000 over 1.8 years | $12,204 | $12,275Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 59.0% | 38.6%Best |
| Fund Family | Capital Group (US) | Indexperts |
| Category | Allocation/Balanced | Allocation/Balanced |
| Style | Equity-oriented Balanced | Equity-oriented Balanced |
| Inception | Sep 26, 2023 | Dec 31, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized).
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 2, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.8 years).
CGBL vs RILA 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 1.8 years both funds cover.
CGBL vs RILA Performance
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF (CGBL) is an ETF from Capital Group (US) and Indexperts Gorilla Aggressive Growth ETF (RILA) is an ETF from Indexperts. Over the past year CGBL returned +7.78% while RILA returned +4.95%. Year to date, CGBL is up 4.99% versus a gain of 6.72% for RILA.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RILA has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.0% compared with 9.3% 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 -20.0% for RILA. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.81. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGBL charges 0.33% per year while RILA charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $33 vs $50 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGBL currently yields 1.94% against 0.12% for RILA.
Holdings Overlap
16.9% of CGBL's money is in holdings RILA also owns. 40.2% of RILA's money is in holdings CGBL also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
16 positions in common, counted across the 77 positions we hold weights for in CGBL and 171 in RILA, against full books of 155 and 342.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 151 positions for RILA that do not appear in our book for CGBL (58.6% of the fund), and 51 for CGBL that do not appear in RILA (73.5%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in CGBL | Weight in RILA | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.43% | 4.51% | 0.08% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 0.77% | 5.35% | 4.58% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 0.65% | 4.06% | 3.41% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.88% | 3.48% | 2.60% |
| APHAmphenol Corp. Class A | 0.30% | 3.87% | 3.57% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 2.53% | 1.26% | 1.27% |
| KLACKla-tencor | 0.63% | 3.12% | 2.49% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 0.34% | 3.32% | 2.98% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.20% | 2.04% | 0.84% |
| GEVGE Vernova Inc. CDR (CAD Hedged) | 1.06% | 2.03% | 0.97% |
40.2% of RILA is already inside CGBL.
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 RILA?
CGBL has an expense ratio of 0.33% while RILA charges 0.50%. CGBL is the cheaper option, by $17 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CGBL or RILA?
Over the past year CGBL returned +7.78% vs +4.95% for RILA, so CGBL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), CGBL annualized +11.70% vs +12.06% for RILA. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CGBL or RILA?
RILA has been the more volatile fund at 15.0% annualized versus 9.3% for CGBL. Worst drawdown: CGBL -11.7% vs RILA -20.0%.
Should I hold both CGBL and RILA?
CGBL and RILA have a monthly-return correlation of 0.81, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CGBL and RILA?
40.2% of RILA's money is in holdings CGBL also owns. 40.2% of RILA's is in holdings CGBL also owns. They hold 16 positions in common, counted across the 77 positions we hold weights for in CGBL and 171 in RILA.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGBL or RILA?
CGBL yields 1.94% while RILA yields 0.12%, so CGBL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RILA better than CGBL?
CGBL has a lower expense ratio. CGBL led over 1Y, RILA over the full window. RILA is less concentrated, with 38.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.