BKLN vs CGCP: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
BKLN and CGCP are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. BKLN is Invesco Senior Loan ETF, while CGCP is Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF. CGCP is broader by holdings count, with 1,493 positions versus 165 for BKLN. CGCP has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has CGCP ahead on AIQ Score, 57 versus 47.
What is the main difference between BKLN and CGCP?
CGCP holds 1,493 positions to BKLN's 165, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | BKLN | CGCP |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.67% | 0.34% |
| Holdings | 165 | 1,493 |
| Top-10 concentration | 20.2% | 17.8% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 6.44% | 5.27% |
| Average volume | 8,769,130 | 1,833,718 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -2.5% | -6.7% |
| YTD return | -3.3% | -5.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 3.3% | 4.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -4% | -8% |
| Beta | 0.11 | 0.15 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.96 | -2.62 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.26 | -3.64 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 47/100 | 57/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 28/100 | 58/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 64/100 | 91/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco Senior Loan ETF vs Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF
CGCP leads
CGCP leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support CGCP, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco Senior Loan ETF
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CGCP over BKLN, 57 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. CGCP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while BKLN holds the stronger quality profile. CGCP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CGCP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. CGCP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco Senior Loan ETF and Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
BKLN vs CGCP: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | BKLN | CGCP | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.67% | 0.34% | CGCP |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 165 | 1,493 | CGCP |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 20.2% | 17.8% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 6.44% | 5.27% | BKLN |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -4% | -8% | BKLN |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 3.3% | 4.1% | Similar |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare BKLN and CGCP against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum28 vs 58CGCP +30
- Risk Resilience64 vs 91CGCP +27
- Quality66 vs 61BKLN +5
- Value36 vs 36Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor CGCP. CGCP’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; BKLN keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CGCP's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BKLN and CGCP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CGCP (Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
BKLN (Invesco Senior Loan ETF): the counter-case, on quality, technicals.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | BKLN | CGCP | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.67% | 0.34% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 165 | 1,493 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 8,769,130 | 1,833,718 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 3.3% | 4.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -4% | -8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.96 | -2.62 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.11 | 0.15 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
BKLN and CGCP share 0.28% of their weighted exposure across 8 common holdings.
153 holdings are unique to BKLN, and 1,442 holdings are unique to CGCP. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
BKLN is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 20.18% of the fund, against 17.8% for CGCP (165 holdings vs 1,493). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | BKLN | CGCP | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cloud Software Group LLC 9.00% 09/30/2029 | 0.11% | 0.11% | 0.11% |
| Cloud Software Group LLC 8.25% 06/30/2032 | 0.08% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| ALLIED UNIVERSAL SR SECURED 144A 06/30 6.875 | 0.04% | 0.05% | 0.04% |
| Peraton Corp 7.67% 02/01/2028 | 1.4% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| TransDigm Inc 6.25% 01/31/2034 | 0.03% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| OAK-Eagle Acquireco Inc 7.25% 07/01/2033 | 0.03% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| CAESARS ENTERTAIN INC SR SECURED 144A 02/32 6.5 | 0.01% | 0.02% | 0.01% |
| Finastra USA Inc 7.75% 07/30/2032 | 0.73% | 0% | 0% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What BKLN adds that CGCP doesn’t
| Holding | BKLN | CGCP |
|---|---|---|
| Invesco Premier US Government Money Portfolio | 6.91% | Not held |
| Discovery Global Holdings Inc 6.19% 06/30/2033 | 1.75% | Not held |
| Hopper Merger Sub Inc 5.99% 04/07/2033 | 1.73% | Not held |
| UKG Inc 6.07% 02/10/2031 | 1.55% | Not held |
| Sedgwick Claims Management Services Inc 6.19% 07/31/2031 | 1.42% | Not held |
| Peraton Corp 7.67% 02/01/2028 | 1.4% | 0.03% |
What CGCP adds that BKLN doesn’t
| Holding | CGCP | BKLN |
|---|---|---|
| US TREASURY N/B 08/46 5.125 | 3.64% | Not held |
| US TREASURY N/B 05/56 5 | 2.46% | Not held |
| US TREASURY N/B 02/55 4.625 | 2.01% | Not held |
| FNMA TBA 30 YR 6 SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE | 1.81% | Not held |
| FNMA TBA 30 YR 2.5 SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE | 1.62% | Not held |
| US TREASURY N/B 05/41 4.375 | 1.35% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CGCP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CGCP | 47 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 36 |
| Technicals | BKLN | Price vs 50-day -1% vs -1.2%; vs 200-day -1.2% vs -3.9% |
| Risk Resilience | CGCP | Risk Resilience 64 vs 91 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BKLN and CGCP and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 10 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on CGCP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CGCP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CGCP +10
- 47 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- CGCP +4
- 49 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- CGCP +2
- 47 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- CGCP +3
- 58 vs 61
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 28 when CGCP moved ahead of BKLN.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BKLN
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CGCP
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week Low Proximity, Downtrend Structure Active.
CGCP leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.1%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.05%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1BKLN closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to CGCP's edge.
- 2BKLN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CGCP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
BKLN leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BKLN | CGCP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.8% | 0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.3% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.4% | -3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.2% | -5.1% |
| Year to date | -3.3% | -5.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2.5% | -6.7% |
Technicals
BKLN has the stronger structure| Metric | BKLN | CGCP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.1 | 71.4 |
| ADX (14) | 28.2 | 35.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1% | -1.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.2% | -3.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 2.9% | 5.5% |
Risk
CGCP is the more resilient| Metric | BKLN | CGCP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.11 | 0.15 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.96 | -2.62 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.26 | -3.64 |
| Max drawdown | -4% | -8% |
| Current drawdown | -3.6% | -7% |
| Annualized volatility | 3.3% | 4.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.4% | -0.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between BKLN and CGCP?
CGCP holds 1,493 positions to BKLN's 165, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do BKLN and CGCP overlap?
BKLN and CGCP share 0.28% of their weighted exposure across 8 common holdings. 153 holdings are unique to BKLN, and 1,442 holdings are unique to CGCP. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, BKLN or CGCP?
CGCP holds more positions: 1,493 versus 165 for BKLN.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
CGCP has the lower expense ratio, 0.34% a year against 0.67% for BKLN.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
BKLN, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 6.44% against 5.27% for CGCP.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 3.3% annualized for BKLN and 4.1% for CGCP.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
BKLN fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -4% against -8% for CGCP.
Compare BKLN and CGCP with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.