CGCV vs UXJA
Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF vs FT Vest US Equity Uncapped Accelerator ETF - January
Which is better, CGCV or UXJA?
UXJA has been ahead.
CGCV has a lower expense ratio. UXJA 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 | UXJA |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.33%Best | 0.85% |
| AUM | $2.1B | $12M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.59% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 146 | 8 |
| YTD Return | +8.70% | +13.40%Best |
| 1Y Return | +11.37% | +17.01%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 9.5%Best | 13.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -13.1%Best | -20.0% |
| $10,000 over 1.7 years | $12,306 | $12,864Best |
| Fund Family | Capital Group (US) | First Trust Portfolios (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 25, 2024 | Jan 17, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 21, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.7 years).
CGCV vs UXJA 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 1.7 years both funds cover.
CGCV vs UXJA Performance
Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF (CGCV) is an ETF from Capital Group (US) and FT Vest US Equity Uncapped Accelerator ETF - January (UXJA) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year CGCV returned +11.37% while UXJA returned +17.01%. Year to date, CGCV is up 8.70% versus a gain of 13.40% for UXJA.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
UXJA has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13.8% compared with 9.5% 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 -20.0% for UXJA. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.74. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGCV charges 0.33% per year while UXJA 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 0.00% for UXJA.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of CGCV and UXJA 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 UXJA?
CGCV has an expense ratio of 0.33% while UXJA charges 0.85%. CGCV is the cheaper option, by $52 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CGCV or UXJA?
Over the past year CGCV returned +11.37% vs +17.01% for UXJA, so UXJA leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), CGCV annualized +12.98% vs +15.97% for UXJA. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CGCV or UXJA?
UXJA has been the more volatile fund at 13.8% annualized versus 9.5% for CGCV. Worst drawdown: CGCV -13.1% vs UXJA -20.0%.
Should I hold both CGCV and UXJA?
CGCV and UXJA have a monthly-return correlation of 0.74, 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 UXJA?
CGCV yields 1.59% while UXJA yields 0.00%, so CGCV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is UXJA better than CGCV?
CGCV has a lower expense ratio. UXJA 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.