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 IWD: how they differ

CGDV and IWD hold 24% of their weight in the same names, and IWD returned more over the year.

Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and IWD hold 24% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGDV and IWD both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGDVIWD
Microsoft Corp5.81%3.89%
Apple Inc2.36%5.38%
JPMorgan Chase & Co1.90%2.46%
Amazon.com Inc1.88%5.95%
Exxon Mobil Corp1.34%1.60%
Cisco Systems Inc3.02%1.30%
AbbVie Inc1.35%1.15%
Intel Corp1.09%1.72%
UnitedHealth Group Inc2.03%1.05%
Philip Morris International Inc1.54%0.79%
RTX Corp2.82%0.72%
Wells Fargo & Co1.99%0.71%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGDVOnly in IWD
NVIDIA Corp 5.66%BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 2.62%
Broadcom Inc 5.16%JOHNSON & JOHNSON 1.72%
Alphabet Inc 3.60%WALMART INC. 1.28%
Eli Lilly & Co 3.15%BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 0.99%
Applied Materials Inc 3.12%THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY 0.96%
General Electric Co 3.08%MERCK & CO., INC. 0.89%
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83%CHEVRON CORPORATION 0.86%
British American Tobacco PLC 2.66%THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, 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 Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

CGDV and IWD on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
IWD
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitaliShares
What it isDividend ValueRussell 1000 value
Total return, 1 year+18.7%+27.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.2 pts+9.9 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.18%
Already in the S&P 50091.0%90.2%
Holdings53870

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.

IWD in plain words

IWD is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +27.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 90% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 870 positions, with the top ten at 27.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or IWD?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and IWD returned +27.4%, so IWD returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGDV or IWD?
CGDV charges 0.33% a year and IWD charges 0.18%, so IWD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGDV and IWD overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 90% of IWD by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 24% 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 IWD, 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 IWD, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-IWD Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources