BCGD vs JDIV

BCGD vs JDIV

Which is better, BCGD or JDIV?

JDIV costs less.

JDIV has a lower expense ratio. JDIV is less concentrated, with 30.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.4%.

Lower Fees: JDIVLess Concentrated: JDIV

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

MetricBCGDJDIV
Expense Ratio0.75%0.47%Best
AUM-$13M
Dividend Yield0.00%1.56%
Holdings8098
YTD Return+3.14%+5.43%Best
1Y Return-+7.36%
Top 10 Weight52.4%30.7%Best
Fund FamilyBaron FundsJ.P. Morgan Asset Management
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap GrowthLarge Cap Growth
InceptionDec 12, 2025Sep 25, 2024

Not shown on this pair: 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

BCGD vs JDIV 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.

Compare BCGD against instead:BCGD vs SPYBCGD vs QQQBCGD vs VOOBCGD vs VTIJDIV against:JDIV vs VXUS

BCGD vs JDIV Performance

Baron Global Durable Advantage ETF (BCGD) is an ETF from Baron Funds and JPMorgan Dividend Leaders ETF (JDIV) is an ETF from J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Year to date, BCGD is up 3.14% versus a gain of 5.43% for JDIV.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

BCGD charges 0.75% per year while JDIV charges 0.47%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $47 annually, a gap of $28 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BCGD currently yields 0.00% against 1.56% for JDIV.

Holdings Overlap

BCGD already in JDIV30.7%
JDIV already in BCGD14.6%

30.7% of BCGD's money is in holdings JDIV also owns. 14.6% of JDIV's money is in holdings BCGD also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

7 positions in common, counted across the 39 positions we hold weights for in BCGD and 87 in JDIV, against full books of 80 and 98.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 45 positions for JDIV that do not appear in our book for BCGD (52.8% of the fund), and 18 for BCGD that do not appear in JDIV (41.0%).

Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.

Top Shared Holdings

StockWeight in BCGDWeight in JDIVDifference
2330:TWTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd8.68%6.20%2.48%
NVDANvidia Corp7.50%2.87%4.63%
GOOGAlphabet Inc. C5.27%2.03%3.24%
CMEC M E Group Inc.3.55%1.13%2.42%
SPGIS&p Global Inc.3.53%0.78%2.75%
APHAmphenol Corp. Class A1.17%0.91%0.26%
AVGOBroadcom Inc1.01%0.70%0.31%

30.7% of BCGD is already inside JDIV.

You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.

BCGDJDIV

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, BCGD or JDIV?

BCGD has an expense ratio of 0.75% while JDIV charges 0.47%. JDIV is the cheaper option, by $28 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between BCGD and JDIV?

30.7% of BCGD's money is in holdings JDIV also owns. 14.6% of JDIV's is in holdings BCGD also owns. They hold 7 positions in common, counted across the 39 positions we hold weights for in BCGD and 87 in JDIV.

Which pays a higher dividend, BCGD or JDIV?

BCGD yields 0.00% while JDIV yields 1.56%, so JDIV currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is JDIV better than BCGD?

JDIV has a lower expense ratio. JDIV is less concentrated, with 30.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.