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 MOAT: how they differ

CGGR and MOAT hold 14% of their weight in the same names, and MOAT returned more over the year.

Capital Group Growth ETF and VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGGR and MOAT hold 14% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGGR and MOAT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGGRMOAT
NVIDIA Corp5.16%2.45%
Broadcom Inc5.40%2.43%
Microsoft Corp4.38%2.20%
Amazon.com Inc2.69%1.33%
Meta Platforms Inc7.09%1.17%
Amphenol Corp0.85%1.50%
Fair Isaac Corp0.80%2.14%
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc0.76%1.42%
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc0.53%1.18%
NIKE Inc0.41%2.02%
Northrop Grumman Corp0.35%1.15%
CoStar Group Inc0.23%0.71%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGGROnly in MOAT
Tesla Inc 5.85%Masco Corp 2.96%
Micron Technology Inc 4.86%Kenvue Inc 2.59%
Alphabet Inc 3.36%Airbnb Inc 2.56%
Alphabet Inc 3.06%Palo Alto Networks Inc 2.51%
Visa Inc 2.34%Brown-Forman Corp 2.49%
TransDigm Group Inc 2.02%Charles Schwab Corp/The 2.45%
Capital Group Central Cash Fund 1.98%Datadog Inc 2.44%
Netflix Inc 1.85%Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2.43%

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.

CGGR and MOAT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGGR
Capital Group Growth ETF
MOAT
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalVanEck
What it isGrowthMorningstar Wide Moat
Total return, 1 year+7.2%+11.3%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.3 pts−6.2 pts
Expense ratio0.39%0.46%
Already in the S&P 50080.6%91.6%
Holdings8955

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%.

MOAT in plain words

MOAT is an index equity fund tracking the Morningstar Wide Moat. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +11.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.46% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 55 positions, with the top ten at 25.3%. It sat 5.7% below its high of Aug 27, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGGR or MOAT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGGR returned +7.2% and MOAT returned +11.3%, so MOAT returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGGR or MOAT?
CGGR charges 0.39% a year and MOAT charges 0.46%, so CGGR is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGGR and MOAT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 81% of CGGR and 92% of MOAT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 14% 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 MOAT, 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 MOAT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGGR-MOAT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources