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 MGK: how they differ

CGDV and MGK hold 36% of their weight in the same names, and CGDV returned more over the year.

Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Vanguard Mega Cap Growth Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and MGK hold 36% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGDV and MGK both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGDVMGK
Microsoft Corp5.81%7.52%
NVIDIA Corp5.66%13.29%
Broadcom Inc5.16%4.28%
Alphabet Inc3.60%5.93%
Meta Platforms Inc3.33%4.08%
Eli Lilly & Co3.15%3.41%
Apple Inc2.36%12.19%
Amazon.com Inc1.88%4.47%
Mastercard Inc1.30%1.47%
Applied Materials Inc3.12%1.13%
Intel Corp1.09%1.10%
Oracle Corp1.60%0.95%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGDVOnly in MGK
General Electric Co 3.08%Alphabet Inc 4.67%
Cisco Systems Inc 3.02%Tesla Inc 3.93%
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83%Advanced Micro Devices Inc 3.20%
RTX Corp 2.82%Lam Research Corp 1.93%
British American Tobacco PLC 2.66%Visa Inc 1.82%
Carrier Global Corp 2.64%KLA Corp 1.48%
Starbucks Corp 2.26%Sandisk Corp 1.28%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 2.17%GE Vernova 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 Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

CGDV and MGK on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
MGK
Vanguard Mega Cap Growth Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalVanguard
What it isDividend ValueMega Cap Growth
Total return, 1 year+18.7%+14.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.2 pts−2.6 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.07%
Already in the S&P 50091.0%99.2%
Holdings5356

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.

MGK in plain words

MGK is an index equity fund tracking the Mega Cap Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 56 positions, with the top ten at 63.8%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or MGK?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and MGK returned +14.9%, so CGDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGDV or MGK?
CGDV charges 0.33% a year and MGK charges 0.07%, so MGK is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGDV and MGK overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 99% of MGK by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 36% 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 MGK, 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 MGK, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-MGK Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources