Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGDV vs FBCG: how they differ
CGDV and FBCG hold 33% of their weight in the same names, and CGDV returned more over the year.
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and FBCG hold 33% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGDV | FBCG |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp | 5.66% | 14.62% |
| Microsoft Corp | 5.81% | 5.20% |
| Broadcom Inc | 5.16% | 3.74% |
| Alphabet Inc | 3.60% | 9.10% |
| Meta Platforms Inc | 3.33% | 3.90% |
| Apple Inc | 2.36% | 9.64% |
| Eli Lilly & Co | 3.15% | 2.25% |
| Amazon.com Inc | 1.88% | 8.43% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt | 2.17% | 1.12% |
| Mastercard Inc | 1.30% | 0.81% |
| Starbucks Corp | 2.26% | 0.61% |
| Oracle Corp | 1.60% | 0.49% |
| Only in CGDV | Only in FBCG |
|---|---|
| Applied Materials Inc 3.12% | NETFLIX INC 2.23% |
| Cisco Systems Inc 3.02% | MARVELL TECHNOLOGY INC 2.03% |
| Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83% | TESLA INC 1.45% |
| RTX Corp 2.82% | APPLOVIN CORP 1.26% |
| British American Tobacco PLC 2.66% | WESTERN DIGITAL CORP 1.19% |
| Carrier Global Corp 2.64% | MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS INC 1.03% |
| Union Pacific Corp 2.12% | CELESTICA INC 0.88% |
| Capital Group Central Cash Fund 2.02% | LUMENTUM HOLDINGS INC 0.82% |
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 | FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | Fidelity |
| What it is | Dividend Value | Blue Chip Growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +18.7% | +17.3% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.2 pts | −0.2 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.57% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 91.0% | 86.8% |
| Holdings | 53 | 214 |
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.
FBCG in plain words
FBCG is an index equity fund tracking the Blue Chip Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.57% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 214 positions, with the top ten at 61.2%. It sat 3.7% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or FBCG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and FBCG returned +17.3%, so CGDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGDV or FBCG?
- CGDV charges 0.33% a year and FBCG charges 0.57%, so CGDV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGDV and FBCG overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 87% of FBCG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 33% 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 FBCG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-FBCG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources