Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGDV vs DYNF: how they differ
CGDV and DYNF hold 38% of their weight in the same names, and DYNF returned more over the year.
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and DYNF hold 38% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGDV | DYNF |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp | 5.66% | 8.62% |
| Microsoft Corp | 5.81% | 5.35% |
| Broadcom Inc | 5.16% | 3.25% |
| Alphabet Inc | 3.60% | 2.87% |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 3.02% | 2.76% |
| Meta Platforms Inc | 3.33% | 2.50% |
| Apple Inc | 2.36% | 7.75% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | 1.90% | 3.59% |
| Amazon.com Inc | 1.88% | 4.42% |
| Applied Materials Inc | 3.12% | 1.41% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 1.34% | 1.93% |
| Eli Lilly & Co | 3.15% | 0.89% |
| Only in CGDV | Only in DYNF |
|---|---|
| British American Tobacco PLC 2.66% | Lam Research Corp 2.71% |
| Carrier Global Corp 2.64% | Berkshire Hathaway Inc 2.38% |
| Starbucks Corp 2.26% | Alphabet Inc 2.10% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 2.17% | Johnson & Johnson 1.92% |
| Capital Group Central Cash Fund 2.02% | Tesla Inc 1.74% |
| Linde PLC 1.95% | Duke Energy Corp 1.63% |
| International Paper Co 1.74% | Bank of America Corp 1.59% |
| TC Energy Corp 1.33% | Parker-Hannifin Corp 1.50% |
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.
| CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF | DYNF iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | iShares |
| What it is | Dividend Value | U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active |
| Total return, 1 year | +18.7% | +20.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.2 pts | +3.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.26% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 91.0% | 98.8% |
| Holdings | 53 | 187 |
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.
DYNF in plain words
DYNF is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.26% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 187 positions, with the top ten at 43.8%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or DYNF?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and DYNF returned +20.8%, so DYNF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGDV or DYNF?
- CGDV charges 0.33% a year and DYNF charges 0.26%, so DYNF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGDV and DYNF overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 99% of DYNF 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 DYNF, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-DYNF Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources