Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

ACWI vs CGDV: how they differ

ACWI and CGDV hold 26% of their weight in the same names.

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and Capital Group Dividend Value ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and CGDV hold 26% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and CGDV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWICGDV
NVIDIA CORPORATION4.89%5.66%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION2.90%5.81%
APPLE INC.4.02%2.36%
ALPHABET INC.2.26%3.60%
BROADCOM INC.1.90%5.16%
AMAZON.COM, INC.2.58%1.88%
META PLATFORMS, INC.1.34%3.33%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.0.86%1.90%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY0.76%3.15%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION0.66%1.34%
INTEL CORPORATION0.43%1.09%
MASTERCARD INCORPORATED0.43%1.30%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in CGDV
ALPHABET INC. 1.87%Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%British American Tobacco PLC 2.66%
TESLA, INC. 1.09%Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 2.17%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 0.66%Capital Group Central Cash Fund 2.02%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 0.59%Linde PLC 1.95%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 0.58%Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 1.42%
WALMART INC. 0.58%Medtronic PLC 1.07%
ASML Holding N.V. 0.56%Smurfit Westrock PLC 1.03%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

ACWI and CGDV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesCapital
What it isMSCI ACWIDividend Value
Total return, 1 year+19.1%+18.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts+1.2 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.33%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%91.0%
Holdings230753

ACWI in plain words

ACWI is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI ACWI. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +19.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.32% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 61% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2307 positions, with the top ten at 24.6%.

CGDV in plain words

CGDV is an index equity fund tracking the Dividend Value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +18.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.33% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 91% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 53 positions, with the top ten at 38.8%. It sat 4.0% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or CGDV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and CGDV returned +18.7%, so ACWI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or CGDV?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and CGDV charges 0.33%, so ACWI is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and CGDV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 91% of CGDV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 26% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

ACWI against CGDV, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, ACWI against CGDV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-CGDV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources