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 QQQM: how they differ

CGDV and QQQM hold 34% of their weight in the same names, and QQQM returned more over the year.

Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and QQQM hold 34% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGDV and QQQM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGDVQQQM
NVIDIA Corp5.66%8.16%
Microsoft Corp5.81%5.32%
Alphabet Inc3.60%3.52%
Broadcom Inc5.16%3.37%
Meta Platforms Inc3.33%2.97%
Apple Inc2.36%7.29%
Cisco Systems Inc3.02%2.09%
Amazon.com Inc1.88%4.62%
Applied Materials Inc3.12%1.57%
Texas Instruments Inc1.21%1.22%
Intel Corp1.09%2.52%
Amgen Inc0.79%0.80%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGDVOnly in QQQM
Eli Lilly & Co 3.15%Micron Technology, Inc. 4.80%
General Electric Co 3.08%Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 3.70%
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83%Tesla, Inc. 3.46%
RTX Corp 2.82%Alphabet Inc. 3.26%
British American Tobacco PLC 2.66%Walmart Inc. 2.48%
Carrier Global Corp 2.64%Costco Wholesale Corp. 1.86%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 2.17%Lam Research Corp. 1.75%
Union Pacific Corp 2.12%Netflix, Inc. 1.59%

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 QQQM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
QQQM
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalInvesco
What it isDividend ValueNasdaq-100
Total return, 1 year+18.7%+23.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.2 pts+5.5 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50091.0%96.7%
Holdings53101

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.

QQQM in plain words

QQQM is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq-100. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +23.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 101 positions, with the top ten at 47.5%. It sat 4.1% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or QQQM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and QQQM returned +23.0%, so QQQM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGDV or QQQM?
CGDV charges 0.33% a year and QQQM charges 0.15%, so QQQM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGDV and QQQM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 97% of QQQM 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.

CGDV against QQQM, 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 QQQM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-QQQM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources