Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
CGGR vs PVAL: Differences, Returns & Fees
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, CGGR returned +2.6% to PVAL's +26.6%; 15% of their weight is in the same names.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about CGGR and PVAL
Net assets: $25.9bn on Oct 27, 2026 for Capital Group Growth ETF, and $14.1bn on Aug 31, 2026 for Putnam Focused Large Cap Value ETF.
Pair scorecard
CGGR costs 0.16 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 24.0 points.
| Measure | CGGR | PVAL |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +2.6% | +26.6% |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its high | 3.4%, high on Oct 6, 2026 | |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | No index, actively managed | No index, actively managed |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.55% |
| Net assets, CGGR as of Oct 27, 2026 and PVAL as of Aug 31, 2026 | $25.9bn | $14.1bn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 15% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 39.7% | 42.8% |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Aug 31, 2026. Method
Risk and return
Mar 4, 2022 to Oct 23, 2026 · 242 weekly returnsEach against its own benchmark: CGGR against VOO, Mar 4, 2022 to Oct 23, 2026; PVAL against IWD, Jun 4, 2021 to Oct 23, 2026.
PVAL returned more: +110.6% to +91.6%. PVAL swung less: 15.2% to 20.4%. PVAL fell less at its worst: −15.6% to −27.7%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | CGGR | PVAL | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +91.6% | +110.6% | PVAL | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +15.0% | +17.4% | PVAL | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | +89.2% | +99.9% | PVAL | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 20.4% | 15.2% | PVAL | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 13.5% | 10.3% | PVAL | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −27.7% | −15.6% | PVAL | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Upside capture | 137.1% | 105.1% | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. | |
| Downside capture | 115.9% | 94.0% | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. | |
| Beta | 1.20 | 1.01 | Not an edge | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 0.92 | 0.93 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | 0.58 | 0.85 | PVAL | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | 0.88 | 1.26 | PVAL | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Treynor | 0.098 | 0.123 | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. | |
| Calmar | 0.54 | 1.12 | PVAL | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. |
| Against the benchmark | ||||
| Benchmark | VOO | IWD | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | −1.0% a year | +4.5% a year | CGGR not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | −0.37 | 2.66 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. |
| Alpha range | −6.3% to +4.3% | +1.2% to +7.8% | CGGR includes zero | The 95% range for the yearly alpha. |
| Information ratio | 0.18 | 1.16 | Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error. | |
| Tracking error | 6.7% | 3.9% | 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, CGGR and PVAL hold 15% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Aug 31, 2026.
half
15% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Side by side
CGGR and PVAL on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGGR and PVAL do different jobs. What does each one do in a portfolio?
- Holdings in common. 15% of the weight is in the same securities (holdings dated Aug 31, 2026).
- One-year total return. Over 1 year to Oct 28, 2026 CGGR returned +2.6% and PVAL +26.6% with distributions reinvested, a gap of 24.0 points.
- Cost. CGGR charges 0.39% of assets a year and PVAL 0.55%, a gap of 0.16 points.
Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.
CGGR
CGGR is actively managed and tracks no index. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +2.6% with distributions reinvested, against +13.7% for its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.39% a year. By its holdings filed for Aug 31, 2026, 78% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 96 positions, with the top ten at 39.7%. It sat 3.4% below its high of Oct 6, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +26.6% with distributions reinvested, against +27.5% for its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Value Index.
PVAL is actively managed and tracks no index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.55% a year. By its holdings filed for Aug 31, 2026, 91% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 44 positions, with the top ten at 42.8%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGGR or PVAL?
- In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGGR returned +2.6% and PVAL +26.6%.
- Which is cheaper, CGGR or PVAL?
- CGGR is cheaper, by 0.16 percentage points a year. That is about $16 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, CGGR against PVAL, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cggr-vs-pval
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). CGGR against PVAL. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cggr-vs-pval
[CGGR against PVAL (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cggr-vs-pval)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.