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 VYM: how they differ

CGDV and VYM hold 25% of their weight in the same names, and CGDV returned more over the year.

Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and VYM hold 25% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGDV and VYM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGDVVYM
Broadcom Inc5.16%8.07%
JPMorgan Chase & Co1.90%3.36%
Cisco Systems Inc3.02%1.52%
UnitedHealth Group Inc2.03%1.41%
AbbVie Inc1.35%1.57%
Exxon Mobil Corp1.34%2.73%
Oracle Corp1.60%1.14%
Philip Morris International Inc1.54%1.08%
Texas Instruments Inc1.21%1.07%
Wells Fargo & Co1.99%1.07%
RTX Corp2.82%0.99%
McDonald's Corp0.93%0.88%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGDVOnly in VYM
Microsoft Corp 5.81%Johnson & Johnson 2.31%
NVIDIA Corp 5.66%Caterpillar Inc 1.73%
Alphabet Inc 3.60%Chevron Corp 1.51%
Meta Platforms Inc 3.33%Bank of America Corp 1.45%
Eli Lilly & Co 3.15%Procter & Gamble Co/The 1.45%
Applied Materials Inc 3.12%Home Depot Inc/The 1.37%
General Electric Co 3.08%Coca-Cola Co/The 1.28%
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83%Merck & Co Inc 1.14%

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 VYM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
VYM
Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalVanguard
What it isDividend ValueUS high dividend
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%0.04%
Already in the S&P 50091.0%92.2%
Holdings53608

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.

VYM in plain words

VYM is an index equity fund tracking the US high dividend. 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 0.04% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 608 positions, with the top ten at 25.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or VYM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and VYM returned +17.6%, so CGDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGDV or VYM?
CGDV charges 0.33% a year and VYM charges 0.04%, so VYM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGDV and VYM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 92% of VYM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 25% 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 VYM, 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 VYM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-VYM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources