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 IYW: how they differ

CGDV and IYW hold 30% of their weight in the same names, and IYW returned more over the year.

Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and iShares U.S. Technology ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and IYW hold 30% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGDV and IYW both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGDVIYW
NVIDIA Corp5.66%16.25%
Microsoft Corp5.81%3.99%
Broadcom Inc5.16%3.78%
Alphabet Inc3.60%7.84%
Meta Platforms Inc3.33%2.81%
Apple Inc2.36%13.65%
Applied Materials Inc3.12%1.92%
Oracle Corp1.60%1.67%
Texas Instruments Inc1.21%1.57%
Intel Corp1.09%2.56%
Salesforce Inc0.92%0.99%
Corning Inc0.84%0.79%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGDVOnly in IYW
Eli Lilly & Co 3.15%ALPHABET INC. 6.34%
General Electric Co 3.08%ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 3.50%
Cisco Systems Inc 3.02%MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 2.98%
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83%LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION 1.99%
RTX Corp 2.82%PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC. 1.86%
British American Tobacco PLC 2.66%KLA CORPORATION 1.41%
Carrier Global Corp 2.64%INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORAT 1.32%
Starbucks Corp 2.26%ANALOG DEVICES, INC. 1.21%

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 Apr 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

CGDV and IYW on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
IYW
iShares U.S. Technology ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitaliShares
What it isDividend ValueU.S. Technology
Total return, 1 year+18.7%+34.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.2 pts+17.4 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.37%
Already in the S&P 50091.0%95.5%
Holdings53139

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.

IYW in plain words

IYW is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +34.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.37% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 96% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 139 positions, with the top ten at 63.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or IYW?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and IYW returned +34.9%, so IYW returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGDV or IYW?
CGDV charges 0.33% a year and IYW charges 0.37%, so CGDV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGDV and IYW overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 96% of IYW by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 30% 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 IYW, 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 IYW, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-IYW Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources