Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGDV vs FTEC: how they differ
CGDV and FTEC hold 28% of their weight in the same names, and FTEC returned more over the year.
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and FTEC hold 28% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGDV | FTEC |
|---|---|---|
| Microsoft Corp | 5.81% | 9.54% |
| NVIDIA Corp | 5.66% | 18.00% |
| Broadcom Inc | 5.16% | 5.01% |
| Apple Inc | 2.36% | 14.38% |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 3.02% | 1.66% |
| Applied Materials Inc | 3.12% | 1.45% |
| Oracle Corp | 1.60% | 1.22% |
| Texas Instruments Inc | 1.21% | 1.20% |
| Intel Corp | 1.09% | 1.99% |
| Salesforce Inc | 0.92% | 0.77% |
| Seagate Technology Holdings PLC | 1.42% | 0.76% |
| Corning Inc | 0.84% | 0.68% |
| Only in CGDV | Only in FTEC |
|---|---|
| Alphabet Inc 3.60% | Micron Technology Inc 2.64% |
| Meta Platforms Inc 3.33% | Advanced Micro Devices Inc 2.60% |
| Eli Lilly & Co 3.15% | Lam Research Corp 1.49% |
| General Electric Co 3.08% | Palantir Technologies Inc 1.40% |
| Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83% | KLA Corp 1.09% |
| RTX Corp 2.82% | International Business Machines Corp 0.99% |
| British American Tobacco PLC 2.66% | Analog Devices Inc 0.95% |
| Carrier Global Corp 2.64% | QUALCOMM Inc 0.92% |
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 | FTEC Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | Fidelity |
| What it is | Dividend Value | MSCI Information Technology |
| Total return, 1 year | +18.7% | +35.7% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.2 pts | +18.2 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.08% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 91.0% | 86.2% |
| Holdings | 53 | 282 |
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.
FTEC in plain words
FTEC is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI Information Technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +35.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 86% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 282 positions, with the top ten at 58.8%. 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 FTEC?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and FTEC returned +35.7%, so FTEC returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGDV or FTEC?
- CGDV charges 0.33% a year and FTEC charges 0.08%, so FTEC is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGDV and FTEC overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 86% of FTEC by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 28% 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 FTEC, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-FTEC Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources