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 GARP: how they differ

CGDV and GARP hold 31% of their weight in the same names, and GARP returned more over the year.

Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and iShares MSCI USA Quality GARP ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and GARP hold 31% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGDV and GARP both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGDVGARP
NVIDIA Corp5.66%4.16%
Microsoft Corp5.81%4.10%
Broadcom Inc5.16%3.96%
Meta Platforms Inc3.33%3.35%
Eli Lilly & Co3.15%3.73%
Alphabet Inc3.60%2.88%
Apple Inc2.36%4.44%
General Electric Co3.08%2.13%
Amazon.com Inc1.88%1.49%
Mastercard Inc1.30%1.63%
Oracle Corp1.60%1.18%
Uber Technologies Inc0.67%0.70%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGDVOnly in GARP
Applied Materials Inc 3.12%KLA CORP 6.46%
Cisco Systems Inc 3.02%MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC 6.07%
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83%LAM RESEARCH CORP 3.79%
RTX Corp 2.82%VISA INC 3.73%
British American Tobacco PLC 2.66%FORTINET INC 3.16%
Carrier Global Corp 2.64%NETFLIX INC 2.85%
Starbucks Corp 2.26%ADOBE INC 2.71%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 2.17%ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC 2.21%

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 and GARP on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
GARP
iShares MSCI USA Quality GARP ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitaliShares
What it isDividend ValueMSCI USA Quality GARP
Total return, 1 year+18.7%+29.5%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.2 pts+12.0 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50091.0%94.4%
Holdings53131

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.

GARP in plain words

GARP is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Quality GARP. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +29.5% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 131 positions, with the top ten at 43.8%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or GARP?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and GARP returned +29.5%, so GARP returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGDV or GARP?
CGDV charges 0.33% a year and GARP charges 0.15%, so GARP is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGDV and GARP overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 94% of GARP by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 31% 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 GARP, 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 GARP, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-GARP Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources