CGDV vs XYLD: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CGDV and XYLD are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CGDV is Capital Group Dividend Value ETF, while XYLD is Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF. XYLD is broader by holdings count, with 507 positions versus 58 for CGDV. CGDV has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has CGDV ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 48.
What is the main difference between CGDV and XYLD?
XYLD holds 507 positions to CGDV's 58.
| Metric | CGDV | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.6% |
| Holdings | 58 | 507 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.23% | 10.24% |
| Average volume | 3,467,903 | 625,833 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +18% | +4.9% |
| YTD return | +12.7% | +1.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 12.5% | 7.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -6.6% |
| Beta | 0.93 | 0.47 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.06 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.66 | 0.06 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 62/100 | 48/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 52/100 | 44/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 74/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF vs Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF
CGDV leads
CGDV leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support CGDV, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CGDV over XYLD, 62 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. CGDV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. CGDV also shows the weaker 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 14 points over 30 sessions. CGDV leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CGDV vs XYLD: 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 | XYLD | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.33% | 0.6% | CGDV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 58 | 507 | XYLD |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.23% | 10.24% | XYLD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -9.8% | -6.6% | XYLD |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 12.5% | 7.5% | XYLD |
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 XYLD 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 35CGDV +20
- Quality66 vs 52CGDV +14
- Risk Resilience84 vs 74CGDV +10
- Momentum52 vs 44CGDV +8
3 of 4 evidence groups favor CGDV. CGDV’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
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 +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
CGDV's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CGDV and XYLD 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 | XYLD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.6% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 58 | 507 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,467,903 | 625,833 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 12.5% | 7.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -6.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.06 | 0.05 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.93 | 0.47 | 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 XYLD: five-year payout growth
XYLD grew its split-adjusted payout at 3.02% a year over 2020-2025. CGDV began paying distributions in 2022, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | CGDV | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $0.565 | $4.271 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #2 of 3 |
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 | 62 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | CGDV | Value 55 vs 35 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day 4% vs 1.5% |
| Risk Resilience | CGDV | Risk Resilience 84 vs 74 |
| 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 XYLD 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 wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20CGDV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CGDV +14
- 62 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- CGDV +4
- 61 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- CGDV +4
- 58 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 21 when CGDV moved ahead of XYLD.
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
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only XYLD
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 +0.02%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.34%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1XYLD closes the Value gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to CGDV's edge.
- 2XYLD generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 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 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CGDV | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.3% | 1.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8% | 4.2% |
| Year to date | 12.7% | 1.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 18% | 4.9% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CGDV | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.6 | 45.2 |
| ADX (14) | 17.4 | 14.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | 1.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.3% | 4.9% |
Risk
CGDV is the more resilient| Metric | CGDV | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.93 | 0.47 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.06 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.66 | 0.06 |
| Max drawdown | -9.8% | -6.6% |
| Current drawdown | -4.4% | -1.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 12.5% | 7.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.3% | -0.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between CGDV and XYLD?
XYLD holds 507 positions to CGDV's 58.
Which ETF is more diversified, CGDV or XYLD?
XYLD holds more positions: 507 versus 58 for CGDV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
CGDV has the lower expense ratio, 0.33% a year against 0.6% for XYLD.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
XYLD, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 10.24% against 1.23% for CGDV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
CGDV has been more volatile over the past year, at 12.5% annualized against 7.5% for XYLD.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
XYLD fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -6.6% against -9.8% for CGDV.
Compare CGDV and XYLD 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.