AMLP vs CGDV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
AMLP and CGDV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. AMLP is Alerian MLP ETF, while CGDV is Capital Group Dividend Value ETF. CGDV is broader by holdings count, with 58 positions versus 15 for AMLP. CGDV has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has CGDV ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 56.
What is the main difference between AMLP and CGDV?
CGDV holds 58 positions to AMLP's 15.
| Metric | AMLP | CGDV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.01% | 0.33% |
| Holdings | 15 | 58 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 7.74% | 1.23% |
| Average volume | 1,276,116 | 3,467,903 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.7% | +18% |
| YTD return | +11.9% | +12.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13.2% | 12.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -9.8% |
| Beta | -0.15 | 0.93 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.85 | 1.06 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.31 | 1.66 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 62/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 47/100 | 52/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 58/100 | 84/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Alerian MLP ETF vs Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
CGDV leads
CGDV leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support CGDV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Alerian MLP ETF
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CGDV over AMLP, 62 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. CGDV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while AMLP holds the stronger value profile. CGDV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CGDV today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CGDV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Alerian MLP ETF and Capital Group Dividend Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
AMLP vs CGDV: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | AMLP | CGDV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.01% | 0.33% | CGDV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 15 | 58 | CGDV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 7.74% | 1.23% | AMLP |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -8.1% | -9.8% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13.2% | 12.5% | Similar |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare AMLP and CGDV against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience58 vs 84CGDV +26
- Quality59 vs 66CGDV +7
- Value61 vs 55AMLP +6
- Momentum47 vs 52CGDV +5
3 of 4 evidence groups favor CGDV. CGDV’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; AMLP keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
CGDV's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMLP and CGDV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CGDV (Capital Group Dividend Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
AMLP (Alerian MLP ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | AMLP | CGDV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.01% | 0.33% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 15 | 58 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,276,116 | 3,467,903 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13.2% | 12.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -9.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.85 | 1.06 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.15 | 0.93 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
AMLP vs CGDV: five-year payout growth
AMLP grew its split-adjusted payout at 4.46% a year over 2020-2025. CGDV began paying distributions in 2022, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. AMLP: The 2020 payout was 18.5% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | AMLP | CGDV |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $3.930 | $0.565 |
| Peer rank | #104 of 138 | not ranked |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CGDV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CGDV | 56 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | AMLP | Value 61 vs 55 |
| Technicals | CGDV | Price vs 50-day -2.8% vs -1%; vs 200-day -0.1% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | CGDV | Risk Resilience 58 vs 84 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMLP and CGDV and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on CGDV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CGDV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CGDV +6
- 56 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- CGDV +8
- 53 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- CGDV +7
- 51 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- CGDV +2
- 60 vs 62
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 21 when CGDV moved ahead of AMLP.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only AMLP
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CGDV
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
CGDV leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.1%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.02%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1AMLP closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to CGDV's edge.
- 2AMLP's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CGDV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
CGDV leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AMLP | CGDV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.2% | -1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2% | -0.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4% | 0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.2% | 8% |
| Year to date | 11.9% | 12.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.7% | 18% |
Technicals
CGDV has the stronger structure| Metric | AMLP | CGDV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.1 | 54.6 |
| ADX (14) | 39.2 | 17.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.8% | -1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.1% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14% | 9.3% |
Risk
CGDV is the more resilient| Metric | AMLP | CGDV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.15 | 0.93 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.85 | 1.06 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.31 | 1.66 |
| Max drawdown | -8.1% | -9.8% |
| Current drawdown | -6.4% | -4.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 13.2% | 12.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.3% | -1.3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between AMLP and CGDV?
CGDV holds 58 positions to AMLP's 15.
Which ETF is more diversified, AMLP or CGDV?
CGDV holds more positions: 58 versus 15 for AMLP.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
CGDV has the lower expense ratio, 0.33% a year against 1.01% for AMLP.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
AMLP, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 7.74% against 1.23% for CGDV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 13.2% annualized for AMLP and 12.5% for CGDV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past year are similar: -8.1% for AMLP and -9.8% for CGDV.
Compare AMLP and CGDV with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.