Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGDV vs RDVY: how they differ
CGDV and RDVY hold 19% of their weight in the same names, and RDVY returned more over the year.
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and RDVY hold 19% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGDV | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| Applied Materials Inc | 3.12% | 4.69% |
| General Electric Co | 3.08% | 2.13% |
| Alphabet Inc | 3.60% | 2.12% |
| NVIDIA Corp | 5.66% | 1.91% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | 1.90% | 1.91% |
| Meta Platforms Inc | 3.33% | 1.50% |
| Microsoft Corp | 5.81% | 1.45% |
| Apple Inc | 2.36% | 1.44% |
| Mastercard Inc | 1.30% | 1.19% |
| Wells Fargo & Co | 1.99% | 0.97% |
| Salesforce Inc | 0.92% | 1.30% |
| Abbott Laboratories | 0.76% | 0.58% |
| Only in CGDV | Only in RDVY |
|---|---|
| Broadcom Inc 5.16% | LAM RESEARCH CORP 4.42% |
| Eli Lilly & Co 3.15% | KLA CORP 4.14% |
| Cisco Systems Inc 3.02% | GE VERNOVA INC 2.80% |
| Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83% | BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP (THE) 2.15% |
| RTX Corp 2.82% | WILLIAMS SONOMA INC 2.12% |
| British American Tobacco PLC 2.66% | ROSS STORES INC 2.01% |
| Carrier Global Corp 2.64% | ALLSTATE CORP (THE) 2.01% |
| Starbucks Corp 2.26% | TRAVELERS COMPANIES INC (THE) 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 Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.
| CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF | RDVY First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | First Trust |
| What it is | Dividend Value | First Rising Dividend Achievers |
| Total return, 1 year | +18.7% | +22.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.2 pts | +4.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.47% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 91.0% | 94.4% |
| Holdings | 53 | 71 |
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.
RDVY in plain words
RDVY is an index equity fund tracking the First Rising Dividend Achievers. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.47% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 71 positions, with the top ten at 28.6%. It sat 3.9% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or RDVY?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and RDVY returned +22.0%, so RDVY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGDV or RDVY?
- CGDV charges 0.33% a year and RDVY charges 0.47%, so CGDV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGDV and RDVY overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 94% of RDVY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 19% 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 RDVY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-RDVY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources