Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGDV vs ITOT: how they differ
CGDV and ITOT hold 34% of their weight in the same names, and CGDV returned more over the year.
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and ITOT hold 34% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGDV | ITOT |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp | 5.66% | 6.64% |
| Microsoft Corp | 5.81% | 3.80% |
| Alphabet Inc | 3.60% | 2.87% |
| Broadcom Inc | 5.16% | 2.45% |
| Apple Inc | 2.36% | 5.82% |
| Amazon.com Inc | 1.88% | 3.20% |
| Meta Platforms Inc | 3.33% | 1.70% |
| Eli Lilly & Co | 3.15% | 1.30% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | 1.90% | 1.20% |
| Intel Corp | 1.09% | 0.90% |
| Applied Materials Inc | 3.12% | 0.79% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 1.34% | 0.78% |
| Only in CGDV | Only in ITOT |
|---|---|
| Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83% | Alphabet, Inc. 2.29% |
| British American Tobacco PLC 2.66% | Micron Technology, Inc. 1.78% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 2.17% | Tesla, Inc. 1.62% |
| Capital Group Central Cash Fund 2.02% | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 1.30% |
| Linde PLC 1.95% | Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. 1.26% |
| Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 1.42% | Johnson & Johnson 0.84% |
| TC Energy Corp 1.33% | Visa, Inc. 0.78% |
| Medtronic PLC 1.07% | Lam Research Corp. 0.74% |
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 Capital Group Dividend Value ETF | ITOT iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | iShares |
| What it is | Dividend Value | Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market |
| Total return, 1 year | +18.7% | +17.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.2 pts | −0.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.03% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 91.0% | 88.3% |
| Holdings | 53 | 2497 |
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.
ITOT in plain words
ITOT is an index equity fund tracking the Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 88% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2497 positions, with the top ten at 32.2%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or ITOT?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and ITOT returned +17.2%, so CGDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGDV or ITOT?
- CGDV charges 0.33% a year and ITOT charges 0.03%, so ITOT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGDV and ITOT overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 88% of ITOT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 34% 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 ITOT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-ITOT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources