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 VTV: how they differ

CGDV and VTV hold 19% of their weight in the same names, and VTV returned more over the year.

Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Vanguard Value Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and VTV hold 19% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGDV and VTV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGDVVTV
JPMorgan Chase & Co1.90%3.07%
Cisco Systems Inc3.02%1.57%
UnitedHealth Group Inc2.03%1.42%
AbbVie Inc1.35%1.67%
Exxon Mobil Corp1.34%2.13%
Philip Morris International Inc1.54%1.06%
Intel Corp1.09%1.05%
RTX Corp2.82%0.96%
Wells Fargo & Co1.99%0.95%
Amgen Inc0.79%0.73%
General Electric Co3.08%0.73%
NextEra Energy Inc1.02%0.65%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGDVOnly in VTV
Microsoft Corp 5.81%Micron Technology Inc 4.89%
NVIDIA Corp 5.66%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 2.96%
Broadcom Inc 5.16%Johnson & Johnson 2.30%
Alphabet Inc 3.60%Walmart Inc 1.87%
Meta Platforms Inc 3.33%Caterpillar Inc 1.84%
Eli Lilly & Co 3.15%Bank of America Corp 1.37%
Applied Materials Inc 3.12%Home Depot Inc/The 1.32%
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83%Procter & Gamble Co/The 1.28%

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 VTV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
VTV
Vanguard Value Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalVanguard
What it isDividend ValueUS value
Total return, 1 year+18.7%+22.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.2 pts+5.4 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.03%
Already in the S&P 50091.0%98.6%
Holdings53308

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.

VTV in plain words

VTV is an index equity fund tracking the US value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 308 positions, with the top ten at 23.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or VTV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and VTV returned +22.9%, so VTV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGDV or VTV?
CGDV charges 0.33% a year and VTV charges 0.03%, so VTV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGDV and VTV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 99% of VTV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 19% 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 VTV, 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 VTV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-VTV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources