Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGDV vs USMV: how they differ
CGDV and USMV hold 18% of their weight in the same names, and CGDV returned more over the year.
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and USMV hold 18% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGDV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| Cisco Systems Inc | 3.02% | 1.81% |
| NVIDIA Corp | 5.66% | 1.64% |
| Microsoft Corp | 5.81% | 1.56% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 1.34% | 1.60% |
| Mastercard Inc | 1.30% | 1.15% |
| McDonald's Corp | 0.93% | 1.25% |
| Salesforce Inc | 0.92% | 0.88% |
| Apple Inc | 2.36% | 0.82% |
| Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc | 0.80% | 1.36% |
| Texas Instruments Inc | 1.21% | 0.78% |
| Mondelez International Inc | 0.79% | 0.74% |
| Corning Inc | 0.84% | 0.68% |
| Only in CGDV | Only in USMV |
|---|---|
| Alphabet Inc 3.60% | DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 1.55% |
| General Electric Co 3.08% | THE SOUTHERN COMPANY 1.53% |
| Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83% | AMPHENOL CORPORATION 1.51% |
| British American Tobacco PLC 2.66% | Chubb Limited 1.50% |
| Carrier Global Corp 2.64% | VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. 1.49% |
| Starbucks Corp 2.26% | WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. 1.48% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 2.17% | MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. 1.46% |
| Union Pacific Corp 2.12% | JOHNSON & JOHNSON 1.44% |
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 | USMV iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | iShares |
| What it is | Dividend Value | MSCI USA Min Vol Factor |
| Total return, 1 year | +18.7% | +6.6% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.2 pts | −10.9 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.15% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 91.0% | 94.8% |
| Holdings | 53 | 170 |
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.
USMV in plain words
USMV is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Min Vol Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +6.6% 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, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 170 positions, with the top ten at 15.7%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or USMV?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and USMV returned +6.6%, so CGDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGDV or USMV?
- CGDV charges 0.33% a year and USMV charges 0.15%, so USMV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGDV and USMV overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 95% of USMV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 18% 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 USMV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-USMV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources