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 RDVY: how they differ

CGGR and RDVY hold 19% of their weight in the same names, and RDVY returned more over the year.

Capital Group Growth ETF and First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGGR and RDVY hold 19% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGGR and RDVY both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGGRRDVY
Alphabet Inc3.06%2.12%
NVIDIA Corp5.16%1.91%
Micron Technology Inc4.86%1.83%
Visa Inc2.34%1.82%
Meta Platforms Inc7.09%1.50%
Microsoft Corp4.38%1.45%
Apple Inc1.79%1.44%
KLA Corp1.17%4.14%
General Electric Co1.11%2.13%
Bank of America Corp1.05%1.96%
Salesforce Inc0.89%1.30%
Costco Wholesale Corp0.60%1.73%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGGROnly in RDVY
Tesla Inc 5.85%APPLIED MATERIALS INC 4.69%
Broadcom Inc 5.40%LAM RESEARCH CORP 4.42%
Alphabet Inc 3.36%BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP (THE) 2.15%
Amazon.com Inc 2.69%WILLIAMS SONOMA INC 2.12%
TransDigm Group Inc 2.02%ROSS STORES INC 2.01%
Capital Group Central Cash Fund 1.98%ALLSTATE CORP (THE) 2.01%
Netflix Inc 1.85%TRAVELERS COMPANIES INC (THE) 2.00%
Eli Lilly & Co 1.81%SNAP-ON INC 2.00%

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 RDVY on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGGR
Capital Group Growth ETF
RDVY
First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalFirst Trust
What it isGrowthFirst Rising Dividend Achievers
Total return, 1 year+7.2%+22.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.3 pts+4.5 pts
Expense ratio0.39%0.47%
Already in the S&P 50080.6%94.4%
Holdings8971

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%.

RDVY in plain words

RDVY is an index equity fund tracking the First Rising Dividend Achievers. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.47% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 71 positions, with the top ten at 28.6%. It sat 3.9% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGGR or RDVY?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGGR returned +7.2% and RDVY returned +22.0%, so RDVY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGGR or RDVY?
CGGR charges 0.39% a year and RDVY charges 0.47%, so CGGR is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGGR and RDVY overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 81% of CGGR and 94% of RDVY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 19% 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 RDVY, 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 RDVY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGGR-RDVY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources