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

CGDV vs FNDX: how they differ

CGDV and FNDX hold 26% of their weight in the same names, and FNDX returned more over the year.

Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF.

What they hold in common

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

Positions CGDV and FNDX both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGDVFNDX
Alphabet Inc3.60%2.38%
Apple Inc2.36%4.64%
Microsoft Corp5.81%2.33%
Amazon.com Inc1.88%1.86%
JPMorgan Chase & Co1.90%1.38%
UnitedHealth Group Inc2.03%1.37%
Exxon Mobil Corp1.34%2.29%
Meta Platforms Inc3.33%1.24%
Intel Corp1.09%2.57%
Cisco Systems Inc3.02%0.90%
Wells Fargo & Co1.99%0.68%
Broadcom Inc5.16%0.65%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGDVOnly in FNDX
British American Tobacco PLC 2.66%Alphabet Inc 1.90%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 2.17%Micron Technology Inc 1.60%
Capital Group Central Cash Fund 2.02%Chevron Corp 1.49%
TC Energy Corp 1.33%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 1.41%
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd 0.82%Walmart Inc 1.01%
Verizon Communications Inc 0.99%
Johnson & Johnson 0.97%
CVS Health Corp 0.91%

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 May 31, 2026.

CGDV and FNDX on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
FNDX
Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalSchwab
What it isDividend ValueFundamental U.S. Large Company
Total return, 1 year+18.7%+26.1%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.2 pts+8.6 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.25%
Already in the S&P 50091.0%91.2%
Holdings53733

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.

FNDX in plain words

FNDX is an index equity fund tracking the Fundamental U.S. Large Company. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +26.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.25% 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 733 positions, with the top ten at 22.5%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or FNDX?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and FNDX returned +26.1%, so FNDX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGDV or FNDX?
CGDV charges 0.33% a year and FNDX charges 0.25%, so FNDX is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGDV and FNDX overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 91% of FNDX 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources