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 VIG: how they differ

CGDV and VIG hold 32% of their weight in the same names, and CGDV returned more over the year.

Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Vanguard Dividend Appreciation Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and VIG hold 32% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGDV and VIG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGDVVIG
Broadcom Inc5.16%5.21%
Microsoft Corp5.81%3.99%
Eli Lilly & Co3.15%3.36%
Apple Inc2.36%4.10%
JPMorgan Chase & Co1.90%3.61%
Cisco Systems Inc3.02%1.64%
UnitedHealth Group Inc2.03%1.52%
AbbVie Inc1.35%1.69%
Exxon Mobil Corp1.34%2.92%
Mastercard Inc1.30%1.86%
Oracle Corp1.60%1.24%
Texas Instruments Inc1.21%1.16%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGDVOnly in VIG
NVIDIA Corp 5.66%Walmart Inc 2.62%
Alphabet Inc 3.60%Johnson & Johnson 2.51%
Meta Platforms Inc 3.33%Visa Inc 2.34%
Applied Materials Inc 3.12%Costco Wholesale Corp 2.04%
General Electric Co 3.08%Caterpillar Inc 1.88%
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83%Bank of America Corp 1.58%
RTX Corp 2.82%Procter & Gamble Co/The 1.55%
British American Tobacco PLC 2.66%Home Depot Inc/The 1.48%

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 and VIG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
VIG
Vanguard Dividend Appreciation Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalVanguard
What it isDividend ValueDividend growth
Total return, 1 year+18.7%+12.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.2 pts−5.1 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.04%
Already in the S&P 50091.0%95.7%
Holdings53332

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.

VIG in plain words

VIG is an index equity fund tracking the Dividend growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 96% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 332 positions, with the top ten at 32.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or VIG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and VIG returned +12.4%, so CGDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGDV or VIG?
CGDV charges 0.33% a year and VIG charges 0.04%, so VIG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGDV and VIG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 96% of VIG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 32% 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 VIG, 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 VIG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-VIG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources