CGGR vs DIA: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CGGR and DIA are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CGGR is Capital Group Growth ETF, while DIA is State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust. CGGR is broader by holdings count, with 103 positions versus 31 for DIA. DIA has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has DIA ahead on AIQ Score, 68 versus 57.
What is the main difference between CGGR and DIA?
CGGR holds 103 positions to DIA's 31.
| Metric | CGGR | DIA |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.16% |
| Holdings | 103 | 31 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.15% | 1.37% |
| Average volume | 2,612,121 | 3,785,458 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +7.4% | +14.1% |
| YTD return | +5.8% | +9.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 18.4% | 12.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -15.2% | -10.1% |
| Beta | 1.37 | 0.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.37 | 1.25 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 68/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 45/100 | 84/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 82/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Capital Group Growth ETF vs State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust
DIA leads
DIA leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CGGR.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support DIA, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Capital Group Growth ETF
State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DIA over CGGR, 68 versus 57 as of Oct 21, 2026. DIA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while CGGR holds the stronger value profile. DIA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DIA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. DIA lead: Reversed — CGGR led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DIA now leads by 11.
Compare Capital Group Growth ETF and State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CGGR vs DIA: 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 | CGGR | DIA | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.39% | 0.16% | DIA |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 103 | 31 | CGGR |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.15% | 1.37% | DIA |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -15.2% | -10.1% | DIA |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 18.4% | 12.7% | DIA |
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 CGGR and DIA 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.
- Momentum45 vs 84DIA +39
- Risk Resilience75 vs 82DIA +7
- Value51 vs 47CGGR +4
- Quality64 vs 67Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor DIA. DIA’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; CGGR 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 +4
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +23
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
DIA's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CGGR and DIA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DIA (State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
CGGR (Capital Group Growth 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 | CGGR | DIA | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.16% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 103 | 31 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,612,121 | 3,785,458 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 18.4% | 12.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -15.2% | -10.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.76 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.37 | 0.83 | 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.
CGGR vs DIA: five-year payout growth
DIA grew its split-adjusted payout at 3.73% a year over 2020-2025. CGGR began paying distributions in 2022, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | CGGR | DIA |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $0.042 | $6.879 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #111 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
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DIA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DIA | 57 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | CGGR | Value 51 vs 47 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.1% vs 0.8%; vs 200-day 4.1% vs 3.9% |
| Risk Resilience | DIA | Risk Resilience 75 vs 82 |
| 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 CGGR and DIA 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 moderate at 11 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 DIA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20DIA lead: Reversed — CGGR led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DIA now leads by 11.
- Today
- DIA +11
- 57 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- DIA +1
- 60 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- CGGR +7
- 62 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- DIA +2
- 59 vs 61
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when DIA moved ahead of CGGR.
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 / 1 bearish / 3 neutral, conflicted
Only CGGR
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only DIA
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
DIA 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.64%, AIQ +6 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.
- 1CGGR closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to DIA's edge.
- 2CGGR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3DIA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 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
DIA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CGGR | DIA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.3% | 1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.6% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.2% | 0.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.7% | 6.7% |
| Year to date | 5.8% | 9.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 7.4% | 14.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CGGR | DIA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.2 | 74.7 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.1% | 0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.1% | 3.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.3% | 9.7% |
Risk
DIA is the more resilient| Metric | CGGR | DIA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.37 | 0.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.37 | 1.25 |
| Max drawdown | -15.2% | -10.1% |
| Current drawdown | -2.9% | -3.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.4% | 12.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1.2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between CGGR and DIA?
CGGR holds 103 positions to DIA's 31.
Which ETF is more diversified, CGGR or DIA?
CGGR holds more positions: 103 versus 31 for DIA.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
DIA has the lower expense ratio, 0.16% a year against 0.39% for CGGR.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
DIA, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.37% against 0.15% for CGGR.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
CGGR has been more volatile over the past year, at 18.4% annualized against 12.7% for DIA.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
DIA fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -10.1% against -15.2% for CGGR.
Compare CGGR and DIA 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.