Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGDV vs RSP: how they differ
CGDV and RSP hold 9% of their weight in the same names, and CGDV returned more over the year.
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and RSP hold 9% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGDV | RSP |
|---|---|---|
| Intel Corp | 1.09% | 0.38% |
| Texas Instruments Inc | 1.21% | 0.27% |
| UnitedHealth Group Inc | 2.03% | 0.25% |
| Amazon.com Inc | 1.88% | 0.24% |
| Corning Inc | 0.84% | 0.24% |
| Broadcom Inc | 5.16% | 0.24% |
| Apollo Global Management Inc | 1.08% | 0.23% |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 3.02% | 0.23% |
| Diamondback Energy Inc | 0.81% | 0.23% |
| Carrier Global Corp | 2.64% | 0.22% |
| Applied Materials Inc | 3.12% | 0.22% |
| Mondelez International Inc | 0.79% | 0.21% |
| Only in CGDV | Only in RSP |
|---|---|
| Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83% | Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.34% |
| British American Tobacco PLC 2.66% | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 0.33% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 2.17% | ON Semiconductor Corp. 0.33% |
| Capital Group Central Cash Fund 2.02% | Sandisk Corp. 0.32% |
| Linde PLC 1.95% | Western Digital Corp. 0.31% |
| Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 1.42% | Ciena Corp. 0.30% |
| TC Energy Corp 1.33% | Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. 0.29% |
| Medtronic PLC 1.07% | Centene Corp. 0.29% |
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 | RSP Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | Invesco |
| What it is | Dividend Value | S&P 500 equal weight |
| Total return, 1 year | +18.7% | +14.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.2 pts | −2.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.20% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 91.0% | 99.1% |
| Holdings | 53 | 503 |
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.
RSP in plain words
RSP is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 equal weight. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% 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 503 positions, with the top ten at 3.2%. It sat 3.5% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or RSP?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and RSP returned +14.8%, so CGDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGDV or RSP?
- CGDV charges 0.33% a year and RSP charges 0.20%, so RSP is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGDV and RSP overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 99% of RSP by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 9% 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 RSP, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-RSP Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources