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 USMV: how they differ

CGGR and USMV hold 15% of their weight in the same names, and CGGR returned more over the year.

Capital Group Growth ETF and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGGR and USMV hold 15% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGGR and USMV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGGRUSMV
NVIDIA Corp5.16%1.64%
Microsoft Corp4.38%1.56%
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc1.56%1.36%
Visa Inc2.34%0.94%
Salesforce Inc0.89%0.88%
Amphenol Corp0.85%1.51%
Apple Inc1.79%0.82%
Eli Lilly & Co1.81%0.66%
Philip Morris International Inc0.62%0.52%
Welltower Inc0.51%0.80%
Broadcom Inc5.40%0.50%
Republic Services Inc0.47%1.26%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGGROnly in USMV
Tesla Inc 5.85%CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 1.81%
Alphabet Inc 3.06%EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 1.60%
TransDigm Group Inc 2.02%DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 1.55%
Capital Group Central Cash Fund 1.98%THE SOUTHERN COMPANY 1.53%
Intuitive Surgical Inc 1.68%Chubb Limited 1.50%
Cloudflare Inc 1.65%VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. 1.49%
Shopify Inc 1.63%WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. 1.48%
SK hynix Inc 1.62%MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. 1.46%

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 USMV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGGR
Capital Group Growth ETF
USMV
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitaliShares
What it isGrowthMSCI USA Min Vol Factor
Total return, 1 year+7.2%+6.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.3 pts−10.9 pts
Expense ratio0.39%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50080.6%94.8%
Holdings89170

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%.

USMV in plain words

USMV is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Min Vol Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +6.6% 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, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 170 positions, with the top ten at 15.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGGR or USMV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGGR returned +7.2% and USMV returned +6.6%, so CGGR returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGGR or USMV?
CGGR charges 0.39% a year and USMV charges 0.15%, so USMV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGGR and USMV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 81% of CGGR and 95% of USMV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 15% 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 USMV, 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 USMV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGGR-USMV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources