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 ONEQ: how they differ

CGDV and ONEQ hold 32% of their weight in the same names, and ONEQ returned more over the year.

Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and ONEQ hold 32% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGDV and ONEQ both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGDVONEQ
Microsoft Corp5.81%7.32%
NVIDIA Corp5.66%11.24%
Broadcom Inc5.16%4.64%
Alphabet Inc3.60%4.85%
Meta Platforms Inc3.33%3.03%
Apple Inc2.36%10.04%
Amazon.com Inc1.88%6.37%
Intel Corp1.09%1.25%
Cisco Systems Inc3.02%1.04%
Applied Materials Inc3.12%0.78%
Texas Instruments Inc1.21%0.60%
Amgen Inc0.79%0.40%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGDVOnly in ONEQ
Eli Lilly & Co 3.15%ALPHABET INC 4.48%
General Electric Co 3.08%TESLA INC 3.58%
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83%MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC 2.38%
RTX Corp 2.82%WALMART INC 2.02%
British American Tobacco PLC 2.66%ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC 1.84%
Carrier Global Corp 2.64%COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP 0.93%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 2.17%LAM RESEARCH CORP 0.87%
Union Pacific Corp 2.12%NETFLIX INC 0.79%

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 May 31, 2026.

CGDV and ONEQ on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalFidelity
What it isDividend ValueNasdaq Composite
Total return, 1 year+18.7%+20.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.2 pts+3.1 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.21%
Already in the S&P 50091.0%87.4%
Holdings531022

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.

ONEQ in plain words

ONEQ is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.21% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1022 positions, with the top ten at 57.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or ONEQ?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and ONEQ returned +20.6%, so ONEQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGDV or ONEQ?
CGDV charges 0.33% a year and ONEQ charges 0.21%, so ONEQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGDV and ONEQ overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 87% of ONEQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 32% 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 ONEQ, 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 ONEQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-ONEQ Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources