ACVU vs PJFV
Hartford Alpha Capture Value ETF vs PGIM Jennison Focused Value ETF
Which is better, ACVU or PJFV?
PJFV has been ahead.
PJFV has a lower expense ratio. PJFV led over 1Y. ACVU is less concentrated, with 35.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.1%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ACVU | PJFV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.45% | 0.33%Best |
| AUM | $274M | $183M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.74% | 0.57% |
| Holdings | 107 | 37 |
| YTD Return | +8.50% | +20.68%Best |
| 1Y Return | - | +27.75% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +24.90% |
| Top 10 Weight | 35.5%Best | 41.1% |
| Fund Family | Hartford Funds | PGIM Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Oct 13, 2023 | Dec 12, 2022 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
ACVU vs PJFV growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
ACVU vs PJFV Performance
Hartford Alpha Capture Value ETF (ACVU) is an ETF from Hartford Funds and PGIM Jennison Focused Value ETF (PJFV) is an ETF from PGIM Investments. Year to date, ACVU is up 8.50% versus a gain of 20.68% for PJFV.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACVU charges 0.45% per year while PJFV charges 0.33%. On a $10,000 position that is $45 vs $33 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACVU currently yields 1.74% against 0.57% for PJFV.
Holdings Overlap
29.2% of ACVU's money is in holdings PJFV also owns. 41.8% of PJFV's money is in holdings ACVU also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
12 positions in common, counted across the 110 positions we hold weights for in ACVU and 35 in PJFV, against full books of 107 and 37.
What only one of them owns
Measured across the 110 and 35 positions we hold weights for.
PJFV holds 19 positions ACVU does not, 47.1% of the fund.
Largest: JPM 4.28%, SHEL 3.55%, WMT 3.41%, TOL 3.20%, AMD 2.95%
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in ACVU | Weight in PJFV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 7.69% | 6.30% | 1.39% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 6.87% | 4.67% | 2.20% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.85% | 5.66% | 0.81% |
| XOMExxonmobil Corp. | 1.83% | 4.01% | 2.18% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 2.36% | 2.93% | 0.57% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 0.85% | 3.03% | 2.18% |
| METMetlife Inc. | 1.20% | 2.55% | 1.35% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 0.89% | 2.81% | 1.92% |
| WFCWells Fargo & Co. | 1.00% | 2.69% | 1.69% |
| DELLDell Technologies Inc | 0.73% | 2.71% | 1.98% |
41.8% of PJFV is already inside ACVU.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ACVU or PJFV?
ACVU has an expense ratio of 0.45% while PJFV charges 0.33%. PJFV is the cheaper option, by $12 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between ACVU and PJFV?
41.8% of PJFV's money is in holdings ACVU also owns. 41.8% of PJFV's is in holdings ACVU also owns. They hold 12 positions in common, counted across the 110 positions we hold weights for in ACVU and 35 in PJFV.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACVU or PJFV?
ACVU yields 1.74% while PJFV yields 0.57%, so ACVU currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PJFV better than ACVU?
PJFV has a lower expense ratio. PJFV led over 1Y. ACVU is less concentrated, with 35.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.1%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.