Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGDV vs SPYG: how they differ
CGDV and SPYG hold 40% 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) Portfolio S&P 500(R) Growth ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and SPYG hold 40% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGDV | SPYG |
|---|---|---|
| Microsoft Corp | 5.81% | 7.81% |
| NVIDIA Corp | 5.66% | 13.66% |
| Broadcom Inc | 5.16% | 5.04% |
| Alphabet Inc | 3.60% | 5.91% |
| Meta Platforms Inc | 3.33% | 3.49% |
| Eli Lilly & Co | 3.15% | 2.67% |
| Apple Inc | 2.36% | 5.99% |
| Amazon.com Inc | 1.88% | 3.48% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | 1.90% | 1.68% |
| Applied Materials Inc | 3.12% | 1.62% |
| Mastercard Inc | 1.30% | 0.78% |
| RTX Corp | 2.82% | 0.72% |
| Only in CGDV | Only in SPYG |
|---|---|
| British American Tobacco PLC 2.66% | Alphabet Inc 4.71% |
| Carrier Global Corp 2.64% | Micron Technology Inc 3.67% |
| Starbucks Corp 2.26% | Advanced Micro Devices Inc 2.67% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 2.17% | Berkshire Hathaway Inc 2.58% |
| Union Pacific Corp 2.12% | Tesla Inc 2.07% |
| UnitedHealth Group Inc 2.03% | Lam Research Corp 1.53% |
| Capital Group Central Cash Fund 2.02% | Caterpillar Inc 1.38% |
| Wells Fargo & Co 1.99% | KLA Corp 1.11% |
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 | SPYG State Street(R) SPDR(R) Portfolio S&P 500(R) Growth ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | State Street |
| What it is | Dividend Value | SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +18.7% | +17.9% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.2 pts | +0.4 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.04% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 91.0% | 100.0% |
| Holdings | 53 | 147 |
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.
SPYG in plain words
SPYG is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 147 positions, with the top ten at 56.4%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or SPYG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and SPYG returned +17.9%, so CGDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGDV or SPYG?
- CGDV charges 0.33% a year and SPYG charges 0.04%, so SPYG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGDV and SPYG overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 100% of SPYG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 40% 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 SPYG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-SPYG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources