Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGDV vs SDY: how they differ
CGDV and SDY hold 11% of their weight in the same names, and CGDV returned more over the year.
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Dividend ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and SDY hold 11% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGDV | SDY |
|---|---|---|
| AbbVie Inc | 1.35% | 1.63% |
| Texas Instruments Inc | 1.21% | 1.56% |
| Medtronic PLC | 1.07% | 1.30% |
| NextEra Energy Inc | 1.02% | 1.08% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 1.34% | 0.93% |
| McDonald's Corp | 0.93% | 0.89% |
| General Dynamics Corp | 0.83% | 0.84% |
| Illinois Tool Works Inc | 0.82% | 1.03% |
| Abbott Laboratories | 0.76% | 1.00% |
| Air Products and Chemicals Inc | 0.74% | 1.03% |
| Linde PLC | 1.95% | 0.56% |
| Microsoft Corp | 5.81% | 0.36% |
| Only in CGDV | Only in SDY |
|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp 5.66% | Verizon Communications Inc 2.15% |
| Broadcom Inc 5.16% | Realty Income Corp 2.14% |
| Alphabet Inc 3.60% | Kenvue Inc 1.76% |
| Meta Platforms Inc 3.33% | Kimberly-Clark Corp 1.75% |
| Eli Lilly & Co 3.15% | QUALCOMM Inc 1.57% |
| Applied Materials Inc 3.12% | Target Corp 1.55% |
| General Electric Co 3.08% | Automatic Data Processing Inc 1.54% |
| Cisco Systems Inc 3.02% | Edison International 1.45% |
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 | SDY State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Dividend ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | State Street |
| What it is | Dividend Value | SPDR S&P Dividend |
| Total return, 1 year | +18.7% | +11.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.2 pts | −6.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.35% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 91.0% | 84.6% |
| Holdings | 53 | 155 |
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.
SDY in plain words
SDY is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR S&P Dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +11.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.35% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 85% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 155 positions, with the top ten at 17.1%. It sat 3.9% below its high of Aug 24, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or SDY?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and SDY returned +11.0%, so CGDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGDV or SDY?
- CGDV charges 0.33% a year and SDY charges 0.35%, so CGDV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGDV and SDY overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 85% of SDY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 11% 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 SDY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-SDY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources