Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
CGDV vs XLK: how they differ
CGDV and XLK hold 31% of their weight in the same names, and XLK returned more over the year.
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and State Street(R) Technology Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and XLK hold 31% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | CGDV | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Microsoft Corp | 5.81% | 8.38% |
| NVIDIA Corp | 5.66% | 14.66% |
| Broadcom Inc | 5.16% | 5.41% |
| Applied Materials Inc | 3.12% | 3.20% |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 3.02% | 2.59% |
| Apple Inc | 2.36% | 12.86% |
| Oracle Corp | 1.60% | 1.39% |
| Texas Instruments Inc | 1.21% | 1.51% |
| Seagate Technology Holdings PLC | 1.42% | 1.21% |
| Intel Corp | 1.09% | 3.68% |
| Corning Inc | 0.84% | 1.11% |
| Salesforce Inc | 0.92% | 0.71% |
| Only in CGDV | Only in XLK |
|---|---|
| Alphabet Inc 3.60% | Micron Technology Inc 5.42% |
| Meta Platforms Inc 3.33% | Advanced Micro Devices Inc 5.28% |
| Eli Lilly & Co 3.15% | Lam Research Corp 3.02% |
| General Electric Co 3.08% | KLA Corp 2.20% |
| Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 2.83% | Sandisk Corp 1.88% |
| RTX Corp 2.82% | Palo Alto Networks Inc 1.54% |
| British American Tobacco PLC 2.66% | Palantir Technologies Inc 1.49% |
| Carrier Global Corp 2.64% | International Business Machines Corp 1.47% |
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 Capital Group Dividend Value ETF | XLK State Street(R) Technology Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Capital | State Street |
| What it is | Dividend Value | Technology |
| Total return, 1 year | +18.7% | +39.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.2 pts | +21.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.08% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 91.0% | 100.0% |
| Holdings | 53 | 74 |
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.
XLK in plain words
XLK is an index equity fund tracking the Technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +39.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% 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 74 positions, with the top ten at 64.5%. It sat 5.2% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or XLK?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and XLK returned +39.2%, so XLK returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, CGDV or XLK?
- CGDV charges 0.33% a year and XLK charges 0.08%, so XLK is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do CGDV and XLK overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 100% of XLK by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 31% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, CGDV against XLK, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-XLK Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources