CGGR vs VTWO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CGGR and VTWO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CGGR is Capital Group Growth ETF, while VTWO is Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF. VTWO is broader by holdings count, with 2,001 positions versus 103 for CGGR. VTWO has the lower expense ratio.
What is the main difference between CGGR and VTWO?
VTWO holds 2,001 positions to CGGR's 103.
| Metric | CGGR | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | 103 | 2,001 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.15% | 1.22% |
| Average volume | 2,612,121 | 1,516,718 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +7.4% | +12.4% |
| YTD return | +5.8% | +11.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 18.4% | 18.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -15.2% | -11.4% |
| Beta | 1.37 | 1.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.37 | 0.94 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 57/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 45/100 | 39/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 76/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Capital Group Growth ETF vs Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF
CGGR and VTWO are effectively level
CGGR and VTWO are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Capital Group Growth ETF
Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate CGGR and VTWO 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 Growth ETF and Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CGGR vs VTWO: 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 | VTWO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.39% | 0.06% | VTWO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 103 | 2,001 | VTWO |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.15% | 1.22% | VTWO |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -15.2% | -11.4% | VTWO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 18.4% | 18.2% | 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 VTWO 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 58VTWO +7
- Momentum45 vs 39CGGR +6
- Quality64 vs 61Even
- Risk Resilience75 vs 76Even
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 +4
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
CGGR's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CGGR and VTWO 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 | VTWO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.06% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 103 | 2,001 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,612,121 | 1,516,718 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 18.4% | 18.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -15.2% | -11.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.56 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.37 | 1.18 | 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 VTWO: five-year payout growth
VTWO grew its split-adjusted payout at 11.18% a year over 2020-2025. CGGR began paying distributions in 2022, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. VTWO: The 2020 payout was 19.2% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | CGGR | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $0.042 | $1.243 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #49 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 57 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VTWO | Value 51 vs 58 |
| Technicals | CGGR | Price vs 50-day 0.1% vs -4.1%; vs 200-day 4.1% vs -0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 75 vs 76 |
| 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 leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CGGR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 57 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- CGGR +6
- 60 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- CGGR +8
- 62 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- VTWO +5
- 59 vs 64
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 15 when VTWO 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
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 +0.24%, AIQ +2 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 | CGGR | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.3% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.6% | -4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.2% | -6.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.7% | 0.4% |
| Year to date | 5.8% | 11.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 7.4% | 12.4% |
Technicals
CGGR has the stronger structure| Metric | CGGR | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.2 | 46.9 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 41.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.1% | -4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.1% | -0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.3% | 16.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CGGR | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.37 | 1.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.37 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -15.2% | -11.4% |
| Current drawdown | -2.9% | -9.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.4% | 18.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between CGGR and VTWO?
VTWO holds 2,001 positions to CGGR's 103.
Which ETF is more diversified, CGGR or VTWO?
VTWO holds more positions: 2,001 versus 103 for CGGR.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTWO has the lower expense ratio, 0.06% a year against 0.39% for CGGR.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VTWO, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.22% against 0.15% for CGGR.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 18.4% annualized for CGGR and 18.2% for VTWO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VTWO fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -11.4% against -15.2% for CGGR.
Compare CGGR and VTWO 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.