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 VT: how they differ

CGDV and VT hold 24% of their weight in the same names.

Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and VT hold 24% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGDV and VT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGDVVT
NVIDIA Corp5.66%4.22%
Microsoft Corp5.81%2.73%
Apple Inc2.36%3.53%
Alphabet Inc3.60%2.04%
Amazon.com Inc1.88%2.29%
Broadcom Inc5.16%1.74%
Meta Platforms Inc3.33%1.21%
JPMorgan Chase & Co1.90%0.72%
Eli Lilly & Co3.15%0.68%
Exxon Mobil Corp1.34%0.59%
Intel Corp1.09%0.38%
Mastercard Inc1.30%0.36%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGDVOnly in VT
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83%Alphabet Inc 1.61%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 2.17%Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 1.52%
Capital Group Central Cash Fund 2.02%Tesla Inc 0.97%
Linde PLC 1.95%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 0.69%
Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 1.42%Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 0.64%
Medtronic PLC 1.07%Micron Technology Inc 0.52%
Smurfit Westrock PLC 1.03%Walmart Inc 0.52%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc 0.52%

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 VT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
VT
Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalVanguard
What it isDividend ValueTotal World Stock
Total return, 1 year+18.7%+18.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.2 pts+1.4 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.06%
Already in the S&P 50091.0%55.2%
Holdings5310042

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.

VT in plain words

VT is an index equity fund tracking the Total World Stock. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +18.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.06% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 55% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 10042 positions, with the top ten at 21.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or VT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and VT returned +18.9%, so VT returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGDV or VT?
CGDV charges 0.33% a year and VT charges 0.06%, so VT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGDV and VT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 55% of VT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 24% 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 VT, 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 VT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-VT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources