Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
CGDV vs VOO: Differences, Returns & Fees
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, CGDV returned +15.8% to VOO's +13.7%; 40% of their weight is in the same names.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about CGDV and VOO
Net assets: $39.1bn on Oct 27, 2026 for Capital Group Dividend Value ETF, and $1.0tn on Sep 30, 2026 for Vanguard S&P 500 ETF.
Pair scorecard
VOO costs 0.30 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 2.1 points; VOO is far larger, $1.0tn against $38.4bn.
| Measure | CGDV | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +15.8% | +13.7% |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its high | 3.6%, high on Aug 13, 2026 | |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | No index, actively managed | S&P 500 Index |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.03% |
| Net assets, as of Sep 30, 2026 | $38.4bn | $1.0tn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 40% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 42.0% | 39.1% |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Aug 31, 2026 and Sep 30, 2026. Method
Risk and return
Mar 4, 2022 to Oct 23, 2026 · 242 weekly returnsEach against its own benchmark: CGDV against IWD, Mar 4, 2022 to Oct 23, 2026; VOO against IVV, Sep 17, 2010 to Oct 23, 2026.
CGDV returned more: +107.2% to +87.9%. CGDV swung slightly less: 14.8% to 16.2%. VOO fell slightly less at its worst: −20.5% to −21.1%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | CGDV | VOO | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +107.2% | +87.9% | CGDV | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +16.9% | +14.5% | CGDV | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | +93.0% | +75.8% | CGDV | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 14.8% | 16.2% | CGDV (slight) | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 9.8% | 10.7% | CGDV (slight) | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −21.1% | −20.5% | VOO (slight) | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Upside capture | 93.8% | 99.8% | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. | |
| Downside capture | 88.1% | 99.9% | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. | |
| Beta | 0.93 | 1.00 | Not an edge | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 0.86 | 1.00 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | 0.85 | 0.66 | CGDV | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | 1.28 | 0.99 | CGDV | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Treynor | 0.134 | 0.134 | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. | |
| Calmar | 0.80 | 0.71 | CGDV | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. |
| Against the benchmark | ||||
| Benchmark | IWD | IVV | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | +4.4% a year | 0.0% a year | Not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | 1.70 | 0.51 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. |
| Alpha range | −0.7% to +9.4% | −0.1% to +0.2% | Includes zero | The 95% range for the yearly alpha. |
| Information ratio | 0.68 | 0.02 | Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error. | |
| Tracking error | 5.6% | 0.4% | Not an edge | How far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized. |
Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 242 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.
What they share
By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and VOO hold 40% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Aug 31, 2026 and Sep 30, 2026.
half
40% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Side by side
CGDV and VOO on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGDV and VOO do different jobs. What does each one do in a portfolio?
- What each follows. CGDV follows No index, actively managed and VOO follows S&P 500 Index.
- Holdings in common. 40% of the weight is in the same securities (holdings dated Aug 31, 2026 and Sep 30, 2026).
- One-year total return. Over 1 year to Oct 28, 2026 CGDV returned +15.8% and VOO +13.7% with distributions reinvested, a gap of 2.1 points.
Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +15.8% with distributions reinvested, against +27.5% for its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Value Index.
CGDV is actively managed and tracks no index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.33% a year. By its holdings filed for Aug 31, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 53 positions, with the top ten at 42.0%. It sat 3.6% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.
VOO
VOO tracks the S&P 500. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +13.7% with distributions reinvested, against +13.7% for its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer as of Sep 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 507 positions, with the top ten at 39.1%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or VOO?
- In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +15.8% and VOO +13.7%.
- Which is cheaper, CGDV or VOO?
- VOO is cheaper, by 0.30 percentage points a year. That is about $30 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Links are sources, not endorsements. A comparison is not a recommendation.
How this is computed
Overlap adds up the smaller of the two weights for each security both funds hold.
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown
ETFIQ, CGDV against VOO, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cgdv-vs-voo
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). CGDV against VOO. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cgdv-vs-voo
[CGDV against VOO (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cgdv-vs-voo)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.