CGGR vs GRNY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CGGR and GRNY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CGGR is Capital Group Growth ETF, while GRNY is Tidal Trust III - Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF. CGGR is broader by holdings count, with 103 positions versus 43 for GRNY. CGGR has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has CGGR ahead on AIQ Score, 57 versus 49.
| Metric | CGGR | GRNY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.75% |
| Holdings | 103 | 43 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.15% | 0.13% |
| Average volume | 2,612,121 | 1,375,384 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +7.4% | +8.9% |
| YTD return | +5.8% | +10.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 18.4% | 17.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -15.2% | -11.6% |
| Beta | 1.37 | 1.28 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.37 | 0.54 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 49/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 45/100 | 41/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 73/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Capital Group Growth ETF vs Tidal Trust III - Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF
CGGR leads
CGGR leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support CGGR, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Capital Group Growth ETF
Tidal Trust III - Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CGGR over GRNY, 57 versus 49 as of Oct 21, 2026. CGGR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. CGGR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CGGR today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CGGR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Capital Group Growth ETF and Tidal Trust III - Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CGGR vs GRNY: 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 | GRNY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.39% | 0.75% | CGGR |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 103 | 43 | CGGR |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.15% | 0.13% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -15.2% | -11.6% | GRNY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 18.4% | 17.9% | 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 CGGR and GRNY 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.
- Value51 vs 36CGGR +15
- Quality64 vs 58CGGR +6
- Momentum45 vs 41CGGR +4
- Risk Resilience75 vs 73Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor CGGR. CGGR’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 +4
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
CGGR's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CGGR and GRNY 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 | CGGR | GRNY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.75% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 103 | 43 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,612,121 | 1,375,384 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 18.4% | 17.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -15.2% | -11.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.35 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.37 | 1.28 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CGGR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CGGR | 57 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | CGGR | Value 51 vs 36 |
| Technicals | CGGR | Price vs 50-day 0.1% vs -0.8%; vs 200-day 4.1% vs 3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 75 vs 73 |
| 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 GRNY 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 8 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 CGGR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CGGR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CGGR +8
- 57 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- CGGR +11
- 60 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- CGGR +7
- 62 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- CGGR +5
- 59 vs 54
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Jul 23 when CGGR moved ahead of GRNY.
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
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.38%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
CGGR 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.28%, 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.
- 1GRNY closes the Value gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to CGGR's edge.
- 2GRNY's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CGGR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
CGGR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CGGR | GRNY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.3% | -3.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.6% | -4.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.2% | -0.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.7% | 4.9% |
| Year to date | 5.8% | 10.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 7.4% | 8.9% |
Technicals
CGGR has the stronger structure| Metric | CGGR | GRNY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.2 | 42.2 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 18.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.1% | -0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.1% | 3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.3% | 13.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CGGR | GRNY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.37 | 1.28 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.37 | 0.54 |
| Max drawdown | -15.2% | -11.6% |
| Current drawdown | -2.9% | -4.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.4% | 17.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, CGGR or GRNY?
CGGR holds more positions: 103 versus 43 for GRNY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
CGGR has the lower expense ratio, 0.39% a year against 0.75% for GRNY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.15% for CGGR and 0.13% for GRNY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 18.4% annualized for CGGR and 17.9% for GRNY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
GRNY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -11.6% against -15.2% for CGGR.
Compare CGGR and GRNY 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.