Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGDV vs DGRW: how they differ
CGDV and DGRW hold 38% of their weight in the same names, and CGDV returned more over the year.
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and DGRW hold 38% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGDV | DGRW |
|---|---|---|
| Microsoft Corp | 5.81% | 5.75% |
| NVIDIA Corp | 5.66% | 7.95% |
| Meta Platforms Inc | 3.33% | 2.97% |
| Apple Inc | 2.36% | 3.87% |
| Broadcom Inc | 5.16% | 2.34% |
| Alphabet Inc | 3.60% | 2.31% |
| UnitedHealth Group Inc | 2.03% | 2.92% |
| Applied Materials Inc | 3.12% | 1.71% |
| Oracle Corp | 1.60% | 2.34% |
| Eli Lilly & Co | 3.15% | 1.53% |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 3.02% | 1.44% |
| AbbVie Inc | 1.35% | 2.07% |
| Only in CGDV | Only in DGRW |
|---|---|
| Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83% | COCA-COLA COMPANY (THE) 2.88% |
| RTX Corp 2.82% | HOME DEPOT INC (THE) 2.81% |
| British American Tobacco PLC 2.66% | JOHNSON & JOHNSON 2.34% |
| Carrier Global Corp 2.64% | ALPHABET INC 2.32% |
| Starbucks Corp 2.26% | CATERPILLAR INC 1.80% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 2.17% | INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP 1.59% |
| Capital Group Central Cash Fund 2.02% | T-MOBILE US INC 1.48% |
| Wells Fargo & Co 1.99% | VISA INC 1.41% |
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 Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.
| CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF | DGRW WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | WisdomTree |
| What it is | Dividend Value | U.S. Quality Dividend Growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +18.7% | +12.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.2 pts | −5.1 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.28% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 91.0% | 96.7% |
| Holdings | 53 | 197 |
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.
DGRW in plain words
DGRW is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Quality Dividend Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.28% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 197 positions, with the top ten at 36.2%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or DGRW?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and DGRW returned +12.4%, so CGDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGDV or DGRW?
- CGDV charges 0.33% a year and DGRW charges 0.28%, so DGRW is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGDV and DGRW overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 97% of DGRW by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 38% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, CGDV against DGRW, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-DGRW Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources