CGUS vs EQTY
Capital Group Core Equity ETF vs Kovitz Core Equity ETF
Which is better, CGUS or EQTY?
CGUS has been ahead.
CGUS has a lower expense ratio. CGUS led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. EQTY is less concentrated, with 42.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 43.8%.
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 | CGUS | EQTY |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.33%Best | 0.99% |
| AUM | $12.3B | $1.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.83% | 0.02% |
| Holdings | 75 | 39 |
| YTD Return | +11.95%Best | +8.78% |
| 1Y Return | +15.39%Best | +13.61% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.76%Best | +17.28% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 11.9%Best | 12.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -18.1% | -17.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.8 years | $20,127Best | $17,972 |
| Top 10 Weight | 43.8% | 42.4%Best |
| Fund Family | Capital Group (US) | Kovitz Investment Group |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Feb 22, 2022 | Dec 28, 2011 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized).
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 12, 2022 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.8 years).
CGUS vs EQTY 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 3.8 years both funds cover.
CGUS vs EQTY Performance
Capital Group Core Equity ETF (CGUS) is an ETF from Capital Group (US) and Kovitz Core Equity ETF (EQTY) is an ETF from Kovitz Investment Group. Over the past year CGUS returned +15.39% while EQTY returned +13.61%. Year to date, CGUS is up 11.95% versus a gain of 8.78% for EQTY.
Over three years, CGUS compounded at +21.76% per year against +17.28% for EQTY. Across the full 4-year window we track, CGUS has the edge at +20.21% annualized vs +16.68%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
EQTY has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.9% compared with 11.9% for CGUS. 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 -18.1% for CGUS and -17.3% for EQTY. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.91. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGUS charges 0.33% per year while EQTY charges 0.99%. On a $10,000 position that is $33 vs $99 annually, a gap of $66 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGUS currently yields 0.83% against 0.02% for EQTY.
Holdings Overlap
32.0% of CGUS's money is in holdings EQTY also owns. 39.0% of EQTY's money is in holdings CGUS also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
13 positions in common, counted across the 68 positions we hold weights for in CGUS and 38 in EQTY, against full books of 75 and 39.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 24 positions for EQTY that do not appear in our book for CGUS (56.6% of the fund), and 46 for CGUS that do not appear in EQTY (57.4%).
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
| Stock | Weight in CGUS | Weight in EQTY | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 7.05% | 5.09% | 1.96% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.75% | 3.14% | 1.61% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.55% | 3.25% | 1.30% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 1.89% | 4.01% | 2.12% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 0.69% | 4.50% | 3.81% |
| PMPhilip Morris International Inc. | 0.92% | 4.08% | 3.16% |
| CARRCarrier Global Corporation | 1.19% | 3.65% | 2.46% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 2.53% | 1.72% | 0.81% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 2.08% | 2.05% | 0.03% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.14% | 0.85% | 2.29% |
39.0% of EQTY is already inside CGUS.
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, CGUS or EQTY?
CGUS has an expense ratio of 0.33% while EQTY charges 0.99%. CGUS is the cheaper option, by $66 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CGUS or EQTY?
Over the past year CGUS returned +15.39% vs +13.61% for EQTY, so CGUS leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), CGUS annualized +20.21% vs +16.68% for EQTY. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CGUS or EQTY?
EQTY has been the more volatile fund at 12.9% annualized versus 11.9% for CGUS. Worst drawdown: CGUS -18.1% vs EQTY -17.3%.
Should I hold both CGUS and EQTY?
CGUS and EQTY have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CGUS and EQTY?
39.0% of EQTY's money is in holdings CGUS also owns. 39.0% of EQTY's is in holdings CGUS also owns. They hold 13 positions in common, counted across the 68 positions we hold weights for in CGUS and 38 in EQTY.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGUS or EQTY?
CGUS yields 0.83% while EQTY yields 0.02%, so CGUS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is EQTY better than CGUS?
CGUS has a lower expense ratio. CGUS led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. EQTY is less concentrated, with 42.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 43.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.