Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

CGDV vs VGT: how they differ

CGDV and VGT hold 26% of their weight in the same names, and VGT returned more over the year.

Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and VGT hold 26% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGDV and VGT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGDVVGT
Microsoft Corp5.81%9.47%
NVIDIA Corp5.66%16.85%
Broadcom Inc5.16%4.21%
Apple Inc2.36%14.59%
Cisco Systems Inc3.02%1.85%
Oracle Corp1.60%1.46%
Applied Materials Inc3.12%1.40%
Texas Instruments Inc1.21%1.11%
Intel Corp1.09%2.03%
Salesforce Inc0.92%0.70%
Corning Inc0.84%0.61%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGDVOnly in VGT
Alphabet Inc 3.60%Micron Technology Inc 4.21%
Meta Platforms Inc 3.33%Advanced Micro Devices Inc 3.21%
Eli Lilly & Co 3.15%Lam Research Corp 1.56%
General Electric Co 3.08%Palantir Technologies Inc 1.35%
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83%QUALCOMM Inc 1.09%
RTX Corp 2.82%International Business Machines Corp 1.08%
British American Tobacco PLC 2.66%KLA Corp 1.00%
Carrier Global Corp 2.64%Sandisk Corp/DE 0.98%

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 May 31, 2026.

CGDV and VGT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
VGT
Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalVanguard
What it isDividend ValueInformation technology
Total return, 1 year+18.7%+35.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.2 pts+17.9 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.09%
Already in the S&P 50091.0%86.9%
Holdings53317

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.

VGT in plain words

VGT is an index equity fund tracking the Information technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +35.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.09% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 317 positions, with the top ten at 59.5%. It sat 3.6% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or VGT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and VGT returned +35.4%, so VGT returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGDV or VGT?
CGDV charges 0.33% a year and VGT charges 0.09%, so VGT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGDV and VGT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 87% of VGT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 26% 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.

CGDV against VGT, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, CGDV against VGT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-VGT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources