Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGDV vs QUAL: how they differ
CGDV and QUAL hold 30% of their weight in the same names, and CGDV returned more over the year.
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and QUAL hold 30% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGDV | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp | 5.66% | 6.52% |
| Microsoft Corp | 5.81% | 5.05% |
| Meta Platforms Inc | 3.33% | 3.50% |
| Eli Lilly & Co | 3.15% | 2.92% |
| Alphabet Inc | 3.60% | 2.54% |
| Applied Materials Inc | 3.12% | 2.45% |
| Apple Inc | 2.36% | 6.28% |
| Mastercard Inc | 1.30% | 2.30% |
| UnitedHealth Group Inc | 2.03% | 1.03% |
| Illinois Tool Works Inc | 0.82% | 0.78% |
| Diamondback Energy Inc | 0.81% | 0.66% |
| Prologis Inc | 1.03% | 0.57% |
| Only in CGDV | Only in QUAL |
|---|---|
| Broadcom Inc 5.16% | LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION 3.23% |
| General Electric Co 3.08% | THE TJX COMPANIES, INC. 3.19% |
| Cisco Systems Inc 3.02% | VISA INC. 3.09% |
| Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83% | KLA CORPORATION 2.79% |
| RTX Corp 2.82% | CATERPILLAR INC. 2.52% |
| British American Tobacco PLC 2.66% | ALPHABET INC. 2.12% |
| Carrier Global Corp 2.64% | BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 2.12% |
| Starbucks Corp 2.26% | NETFLIX, INC. 2.00% |
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 Capital Group Dividend Value ETF | QUAL iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | iShares |
| What it is | Dividend Value | MSCI USA Quality Factor |
| Total return, 1 year | +18.7% | +16.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.2 pts | −1.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.15% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 91.0% | 98.9% |
| Holdings | 53 | 121 |
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.
QUAL in plain words
QUAL is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Quality Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.0% 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 Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 121 positions, with the top ten at 39.1%. It sat 3.1% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or QUAL?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and QUAL returned +16.0%, so CGDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGDV or QUAL?
- CGDV charges 0.33% a year and QUAL charges 0.15%, so QUAL is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGDV and QUAL overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 99% of QUAL 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, CGDV against QUAL, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-QUAL Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources