CGCV vs IGLD
Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF vs FT Vest Gold Strategy Target Income ETF
Which is better, CGCV or IGLD?
CGCV has been ahead.
CGCV has a lower expense ratio. CGCV led over 1Y and the full window.
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 | CGCV | IGLD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.33%Best | 0.85% |
| AUM | $2.1B | $596M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.59% | 24.76% |
| Holdings | 146 | 10 |
| YTD Return | +8.70%Best | -15.99% |
| 1Y Return | +11.37%Best | -11.90% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +16.23% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +10.02% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 9.9%Best | 17.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -13.1%Best | -29.8% |
| $10,000 over 2.3 years | $13,706Best | $13,670 |
| Fund Family | Capital Group (US) | First Trust Portfolios (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 25, 2024 | Mar 2, 2021 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 27, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.3 years).
CGCV vs IGLD 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 covers the 2.3 years both funds cover.
CGCV vs IGLD Performance
Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF (CGCV) is an ETF from Capital Group (US) and FT Vest Gold Strategy Target Income ETF (IGLD) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year CGCV returned +11.37% while IGLD returned -11.90%. Year to date, CGCV is up 8.70% versus a loss of 15.99% for IGLD.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IGLD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.9% compared with 9.9% for CGCV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -13.1% for CGCV and -29.8% for IGLD. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.24. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGCV charges 0.33% per year while IGLD charges 0.85%. On a $10,000 position that is $33 vs $85 annually, a gap of $52 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGCV currently yields 1.59% against 24.76% for IGLD.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of CGCV and IGLD you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGCV or IGLD?
CGCV has an expense ratio of 0.33% while IGLD charges 0.85%. CGCV is the cheaper option, by $52 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CGCV or IGLD?
Over the past year CGCV returned +11.37% vs -11.90% for IGLD, so CGCV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), CGCV annualized +14.69% vs +14.56% for IGLD. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CGCV or IGLD?
IGLD has been the more volatile fund at 17.9% annualized versus 9.9% for CGCV. Worst drawdown: CGCV -13.1% vs IGLD -29.8%.
Should I hold both CGCV and IGLD?
CGCV and IGLD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.24, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGCV or IGLD?
CGCV yields 1.59% while IGLD yields 24.76%, so IGLD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IGLD better than CGCV?
CGCV has a lower expense ratio. CGCV led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.