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 VOO: how they differ

CGDV and VOO hold 37% of their weight in the same names, and CGDV returned more over the year.

Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Vanguard 500 Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and VOO hold 37% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGDV and VOO both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGDVVOO
NVIDIA Corp5.66%7.53%
Microsoft Corp5.81%4.31%
Alphabet Inc3.60%3.26%
Broadcom Inc5.16%2.78%
Apple Inc2.36%6.61%
Meta Platforms Inc3.33%1.92%
Amazon.com Inc1.88%3.63%
Eli Lilly & Co3.15%1.48%
JPMorgan Chase & Co1.90%1.26%
Intel Corp1.09%1.03%
Applied Materials Inc3.12%0.89%
Exxon Mobil Corp1.34%0.88%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGDVOnly in VOO
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83%Alphabet Inc 2.60%
British American Tobacco PLC 2.66%Micron Technology Inc 2.02%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 2.17%Tesla Inc 1.84%
Capital Group Central Cash Fund 2.02%Advanced Micro Devices Inc 1.47%
Linde PLC 1.95%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 1.43%
Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 1.42%Johnson & Johnson 0.95%
TC Energy Corp 1.33%Visa Inc 0.87%
Medtronic PLC 1.07%Lam Research Corp 0.84%

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 and VOO on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
VOO
Vanguard 500 Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalVanguard
What it isDividend ValueS&P 500
Total return, 1 year+18.7%+17.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.2 pts+0.1 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.03%
Already in the S&P 50091.0%100.0%
Holdings53506

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.

VOO in plain words

VOO is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% 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 506 positions, with the top ten at 36.5%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or VOO?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and VOO returned +17.6%, so CGDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGDV or VOO?
CGDV charges 0.33% a year and VOO charges 0.03%, so VOO is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGDV and VOO overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 100% of VOO by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 37% 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 VOO, 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 VOO, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-VOO Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources