CGDV vs VOO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CGDV and VOO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CGDV is Capital Group Dividend Value ETF, while VOO is Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. VOO is broader by holdings count, with 508 positions versus 58 for CGDV. VOO has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VOO ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 62.
What is the main difference between CGDV and VOO?
VOO holds 508 positions to CGDV's 58.
| Metric | CGDV | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 58 | 508 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.23% | 1.05% |
| Average volume | 3,467,903 | 7,814,237 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +18% | +16.4% |
| YTD return | +12.7% | +12.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 12.5% | 12.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -9.2% |
| Beta | 0.93 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.06 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.66 | 1.38 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 62/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 52/100 | 64/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 87/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO leads
VOO leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support VOO, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VOO over CGDV, 64 versus 62 as of Oct 21, 2026. VOO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while CGDV holds the stronger value profile. VOO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VOO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. VOO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CGDV vs VOO: 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 | CGDV | VOO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.33% | 0.03% | VOO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 58 | 508 | VOO |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.23% | 1.05% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -9.8% | -9.2% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 12.5% | 12.8% | 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 CGDV and VOO 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.
- Value55 vs 41CGDV +14
- Momentum52 vs 64VOO +12
- Quality66 vs 77VOO +11
- Risk Resilience84 vs 87Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor VOO. VOO’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; CGDV 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 +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +17
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
The lead changed hands: VOO moved ahead of CGDV in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CGDV and VOO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VOO (Vanguard S&P 500 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
CGDV (Capital Group Dividend Value 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 | CGDV | VOO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 58 | 508 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,467,903 | 7,814,237 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 12.5% | 12.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.06 | 0.91 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.93 | 1.00 | 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.
CGDV vs VOO: five-year payout growth
VOO grew its split-adjusted payout at 5.91% a year over 2020-2025. CGDV began paying distributions in 2022, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | CGDV | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $0.565 | $7.068 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #88 of 138 |
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
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VOO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 62 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | CGDV | Value 55 vs 41 |
| Technicals | VOO | Price vs 50-day -1% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day 4% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 84 vs 87 |
| 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 CGDV and VOO and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 VOO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VOO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VOO +2
- 62 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- VOO +2
- 61 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- VOO +6
- 58 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- VOO +6
- 62 vs 68
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when VOO moved ahead of CGDV.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CGDV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VOO
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VOO 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 +0.02%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1CGDV closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to VOO's edge.
- 2CGDV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3VOO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate VOO's advantage entirely.
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
VOO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CGDV | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | -0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.3% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | 12.7% | 12.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 18% | 16.4% |
Technicals
VOO has the stronger structure| Metric | CGDV | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.6 | 56.2 |
| ADX (14) | 17.4 | 12.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.3% | 9.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CGDV | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.93 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.06 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.66 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -9.8% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -4.4% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 12.5% | 12.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.3% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between CGDV and VOO?
VOO holds 508 positions to CGDV's 58.
Which ETF is more diversified, CGDV or VOO?
VOO holds more positions: 508 versus 58 for CGDV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VOO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.33% for CGDV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.23% for CGDV and 1.05% for VOO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 12.5% annualized for CGDV and 12.8% for VOO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past year are similar: -9.8% for CGDV and -9.2% for VOO.
Compare CGDV and VOO 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.