CGDV vs VYMI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CGDV and VYMI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CGDV is Capital Group Dividend Value ETF, while VYMI is Vanguard International High Dividend Yield ETF. VYMI is broader by holdings count, with 1,602 positions versus 58 for CGDV. VYMI has the lower expense ratio.
What is the main difference between CGDV and VYMI?
VYMI holds 1,602 positions to CGDV's 58.
| Metric | CGDV | VYMI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.07% |
| Holdings | 58 | 1,602 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.23% | 3.64% |
| Average volume | 3,467,903 | 875,055 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +18% | +20.4% |
| YTD return | +12.7% | +13.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 12.5% | 13.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -10.8% |
| Beta | 0.93 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.06 | 1.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.66 | 1.65 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 62/100 | 62/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 52/100 | 54/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF vs Vanguard International High Dividend Yield ETF
CGDV and VYMI are effectively level
CGDV and VYMI are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
Vanguard International High Dividend Yield ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate CGDV and VYMI as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Vanguard International High Dividend Yield ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CGDV vs VYMI: 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 | VYMI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.33% | 0.07% | VYMI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 58 | 1,602 | VYMI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.23% | 3.64% | VYMI |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -9.8% | -10.8% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 12.5% | 13.8% | CGDV |
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 VYMI 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 64VYMI +9
- Risk Resilience84 vs 77CGDV +7
- Quality66 vs 60CGDV +6
- Momentum52 vs 54Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CGDV and VYMI both carry a full feed there.
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 | VYMI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.07% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 58 | 1,602 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,467,903 | 875,055 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 12.5% | 13.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -10.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.06 | 1.14 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.93 | 0.75 | 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 VYMI: five-year payout growth
VYMI grew its split-adjusted payout at 11.09% a year over 2020-2025. CGDV began paying distributions in 2022, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. VYMI: The 2020 payout was 26.9% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | CGDV | VYMI |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $0.565 | $3.315 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #5 of 33 |
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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 62 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VYMI | Value 55 vs 64 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1% vs -1.1%; vs 200-day 4% vs 2.8% |
| Risk Resilience | CGDV | Risk Resilience 84 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
95 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20CGDV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 62 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- CGDV +2
- 61 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- CGDV +2
- 58 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- VYMI +3
- 63 vs 66
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 23 when CGDV moved ahead of VYMI.
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
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only VYMI
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
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 +0.28%, AIQ +1 points).
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
Split across windows| Metric | CGDV | VYMI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | -1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.3% | 0.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8% | 4.2% |
| Year to date | 12.7% | 13.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 18% | 20.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CGDV | VYMI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.6 | 56 |
| ADX (14) | 17.4 | 24.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1% | -1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | 2.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.3% | 12.1% |
Risk
CGDV is the more resilient| Metric | CGDV | VYMI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.93 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.06 | 1.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.66 | 1.65 |
| Max drawdown | -9.8% | -10.8% |
| Current drawdown | -4.4% | -4.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 12.5% | 13.8% |
| 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 CGDV and VYMI?
VYMI holds 1,602 positions to CGDV's 58.
Which ETF is more diversified, CGDV or VYMI?
VYMI holds more positions: 1,602 versus 58 for CGDV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VYMI has the lower expense ratio, 0.07% a year against 0.33% for CGDV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VYMI, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 3.64% against 1.23% for CGDV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VYMI has been more volatile over the past year, at 13.8% annualized against 12.5% for CGDV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past year are similar: -9.8% for CGDV and -10.8% for VYMI.
Compare CGDV and VYMI 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.