CGGR vs MTAW

CGGR vs MTAW

Which is better, CGGR or MTAW?

CGGR costs less.

CGGR has a lower expense ratio. CGGR is less concentrated, with 40.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 54.5%.

Lower Fees: CGGRLess Concentrated: CGGR

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

MetricCGGRMTAW
Expense Ratio0.39%Best0.59%
AUM$26.6B$2M
Dividend Yield0.15%0.00%
Holdings9725
YTD Return+6.35%Best-1.65%
1Y Return+8.20%-
3Y Return (annualized)+24.14%-
Top 10 Weight40.8%Best54.5%
Fund FamilyCapital Group (US)Harbor Funds
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap GrowthLarge Cap Growth
InceptionFeb 22, 2022Aug 12, 2026

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

CGGR vs MTAW 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 CGGR against instead:CGGR vs SPYCGGR vs QQQCGGR vs VOOCGGR vs VTIMTAW against:MTAW vs VXUS

CGGR vs MTAW Performance

Capital Group Growth ETF (CGGR) is an ETF from Capital Group (US) and Meta AI Lab Ecosystem ETF (MTAW) is an ETF from Harbor Funds. Year to date, CGGR is up 6.35% versus a loss of 1.65% for MTAW.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

CGGR charges 0.39% per year while MTAW charges 0.59%. On a $10,000 position that is $39 vs $59 annually, a gap of $20 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGGR currently yields 0.15% against 0.00% for MTAW.

Holdings Overlap

CGGR already in MTAW21.8%
MTAW already in CGGR37.5%

21.8% of CGGR's money is in holdings MTAW also owns. 37.5% of MTAW's money is in holdings CGGR also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

7 positions in common, counted across the 96 positions we hold weights for in CGGR and 25 in MTAW, against full books of 97 and 25.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 14 positions for MTAW that do not appear in our book for CGGR (46.1% of the fund), and 77 for CGGR that do not appear in MTAW (70.9%).

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 CGGRWeight in MTAWDifference
METAMeta Platforms Inc6.58%19.11%12.53%
NVDANvidia Corp5.07%3.50%1.57%
AVGOBroadcom Inc4.43%2.92%1.51%
GOOGAlphabet Inc. C3.24%3.17%0.07%
2330:TWTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd1.57%3.90%2.33%
ANETArista Networks Inc Common Stock0.51%2.53%2.02%
SKHYSk Hynix Inc Adr Adr0.42%2.32%1.90%

37.5% of MTAW is already inside CGGR.

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

CGGRMTAW

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, CGGR or MTAW?

CGGR has an expense ratio of 0.39% while MTAW charges 0.59%. CGGR is the cheaper option, by $20 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between CGGR and MTAW?

37.5% of MTAW's money is in holdings CGGR also owns. 37.5% of MTAW's is in holdings CGGR also owns. They hold 7 positions in common, counted across the 96 positions we hold weights for in CGGR and 25 in MTAW.

Which pays a higher dividend, CGGR or MTAW?

CGGR yields 0.15% while MTAW yields 0.00%, so CGGR currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is MTAW better than CGGR?

CGGR has a lower expense ratio. CGGR is less concentrated, with 40.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 54.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.