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 MTUM: how they differ

CGGR and MTUM hold 29% of their weight in the same names, and MTUM returned more over the year.

Capital Group Growth ETF and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGGR and MTUM hold 29% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGGR and MTUM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGGRMTUM
Broadcom Inc5.40%5.41%
Micron Technology Inc4.86%5.57%
NVIDIA Corp5.16%4.65%
Alphabet Inc3.06%2.95%
Alphabet Inc3.36%2.39%
Intel Corp1.19%3.84%
KLA Corp1.17%1.61%
General Electric Co1.11%1.90%
Amphenol Corp0.85%1.55%
AppLovin Corp0.57%0.87%
Caterpillar Inc0.55%3.21%
Welltower Inc0.51%1.04%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGGROnly in MTUM
Meta Platforms Inc 7.09%ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 4.04%
Tesla Inc 5.85%JOHNSON & JOHNSON 3.76%
Microsoft Corp 4.38%LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION 3.62%
Amazon.com Inc 2.69%EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 3.44%
Visa Inc 2.34%JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 2.87%
TransDigm Group Inc 2.02%WALMART INC. 2.76%
Capital Group Central Cash Fund 1.98%APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. 2.36%
Netflix Inc 1.85%THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. 1.69%

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 MTUM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGGR
Capital Group Growth ETF
MTUM
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitaliShares
What it isGrowthMSCI USA Momentum Factor
Total return, 1 year+7.2%+21.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.3 pts+4.3 pts
Expense ratio0.39%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50080.6%98.2%
Holdings89125

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%.

MTUM in plain words

MTUM is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 125 positions, with the top ten at 40.5%. It sat 11.1% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGGR or MTUM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGGR returned +7.2% and MTUM returned +21.8%, so MTUM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGGR or MTUM?
CGGR charges 0.39% a year and MTUM charges 0.15%, so MTUM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGGR and MTUM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 81% of CGGR and 98% of MTUM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 29% 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 MTUM, 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 MTUM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGGR-MTUM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources