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 RSP: how they differ

CGGR and RSP hold 12% of their weight in the same names, and RSP returned more over the year.

Capital Group Growth ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGGR and RSP hold 12% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGGR and RSP both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGGRRSP
Intel Corp1.19%0.38%
UnitedHealth Group Inc0.56%0.25%
Quanta Services Inc0.99%0.25%
Carvana Co0.43%0.25%
GE Vernova Inc0.44%0.25%
Caterpillar Inc0.55%0.24%
Amazon.com Inc2.69%0.24%
Micron Technology Inc4.86%0.24%
Broadcom Inc5.40%0.24%
Apollo Global Management Inc0.38%0.23%
KKR & Co Inc0.72%0.23%
KLA Corp1.17%0.23%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGGROnly in RSP
Capital Group Central Cash Fund 1.98%Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.34%
Cloudflare Inc 1.65%Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 0.33%
Shopify Inc 1.63%ON Semiconductor Corp. 0.33%
SK hynix Inc 1.62%Sandisk Corp. 0.32%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 1.48%Western Digital Corp. 0.31%
Strategy Inc 1.03%Ciena Corp. 0.30%
ASML Holding NV 0.83%Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. 0.29%
Performance Food Group Co 0.83%Centene Corp. 0.29%

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 RSP on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGGR
Capital Group Growth ETF
RSP
Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalInvesco
What it isGrowthS&P 500 equal weight
Total return, 1 year+7.2%+14.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.3 pts−2.7 pts
Expense ratio0.39%0.20%
Already in the S&P 50080.6%99.1%
Holdings89503

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%.

RSP in plain words

RSP is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 equal weight. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% 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 503 positions, with the top ten at 3.2%. It sat 3.5% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGGR or RSP?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGGR returned +7.2% and RSP returned +14.8%, so RSP returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGGR or RSP?
CGGR charges 0.39% a year and RSP charges 0.20%, so RSP is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGGR and RSP overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 81% of CGGR and 99% of RSP by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 12% 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 RSP, 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 RSP, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGGR-RSP Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources