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

CGGR vs DYNF: how they differ

CGGR and DYNF hold 38% of their weight in the same names, and DYNF returned more over the year.

Capital Group Growth ETF and iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGGR and DYNF hold 38% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGGR and DYNF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGGRDYNF
NVIDIA Corp5.16%8.62%
Microsoft Corp4.38%5.35%
Broadcom Inc5.40%3.25%
Alphabet Inc3.06%2.87%
Amazon.com Inc2.69%4.42%
Meta Platforms Inc7.09%2.50%
Alphabet Inc3.36%2.10%
Apple Inc1.79%7.75%
Tesla Inc5.85%1.74%
Micron Technology Inc4.86%1.35%
Netflix Inc1.85%1.17%
Bank of America Corp1.05%1.59%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGGROnly in DYNF
Capital Group Central Cash Fund 1.98%JPMorgan Chase & Co 3.59%
Cloudflare Inc 1.65%Cisco Systems Inc 2.76%
Shopify Inc 1.63%Lam Research Corp 2.71%
SK hynix Inc 1.62%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 2.38%
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc 1.56%Exxon Mobil Corp 1.93%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 1.48%Johnson & Johnson 1.92%
KLA Corp 1.17%Duke Energy Corp 1.63%
Strategy Inc 1.03%Parker-Hannifin Corp 1.50%

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.

CGGR and DYNF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGGR
Capital Group Growth ETF
DYNF
iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitaliShares
What it isGrowthU.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active
Total return, 1 year+7.2%+20.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.3 pts+3.3 pts
Expense ratio0.39%0.26%
Already in the S&P 50080.6%98.8%
Holdings89187

CGGR in plain words

CGGR is an index equity fund tracking the Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.39% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 81% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 89 positions, with the top ten at 44.2%.

DYNF in plain words

DYNF is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.26% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 187 positions, with the top ten at 43.8%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGGR or DYNF?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGGR returned +7.2% and DYNF returned +20.8%, so DYNF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGGR or DYNF?
CGGR charges 0.39% a year and DYNF charges 0.26%, so DYNF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGGR and DYNF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 81% of CGGR and 99% of DYNF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 38% 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.

CGGR against DYNF, 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, CGGR against DYNF, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGGR-DYNF Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources