CGUS vs NANC
Capital Group Core Equity ETF vs Subversive Congressional Democrats Trading ETF
Which is better, CGUS or NANC?
NANC has been ahead.
CGUS has a lower expense ratio. NANC led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. CGUS is less concentrated, with 43.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.5%.
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 | NANC |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.33%Best | 0.72% |
| AUM | $12.3B | $298M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.83% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 75 | 181 |
| YTD Return | +11.95% | +13.64%Best |
| 1Y Return | +15.39% | +15.98%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.76% | +23.88%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 11.8%Best | 14.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -18.1%Best | -20.9% |
| $10,000 over 3.7 years | $19,445 | $20,418Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 43.8%Best | 47.5% |
| Fund Family | Capital Group (US) | Subversive Capital |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Feb 22, 2022 | Feb 7, 2023 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized).
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 7, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.7 years).
CGUS vs NANC 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 3.7 years both funds cover.
CGUS vs NANC Performance
Capital Group Core Equity ETF (CGUS) is an ETF from Capital Group (US) and Subversive Congressional Democrats Trading ETF (NANC) is an ETF from Subversive Capital. Over the past year CGUS returned +15.39% while NANC returned +15.98%. Year to date, CGUS is up 11.95% versus a gain of 13.64% for NANC.
Over three years, CGUS compounded at +21.76% per year against +23.88% for NANC. Across the full 4-year window we track, NANC has the edge at +21.28% annualized vs +19.69%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
NANC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.5% compared with 11.8% 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 -20.9% for NANC. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.93. 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 NANC charges 0.72%. On a $10,000 position that is $33 vs $72 annually, a gap of $39 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGUS currently yields 0.83% against 0.18% for NANC.
Holdings Overlap
66.4% of CGUS's money is in holdings NANC also owns. 60.9% of NANC's money is in holdings CGUS also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
33 positions in common, counted across the 68 positions we hold weights for in CGUS and 89 in NANC, against full books of 75 and 181.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 55 positions for NANC that do not appear in our book for CGUS (38.8% of the fund), and 27 for CGUS that do not appear in NANC (25.9%).
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
| Stock | Weight in CGUS | Weight in NANC | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.90% | 8.78% | 0.88% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 7.05% | 6.66% | 0.39% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.75% | 4.69% | 0.06% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 1.89% | 5.73% | 3.84% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 2.53% | 4.41% | 1.88% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.55% | 2.37% | 2.18% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 2.08% | 4.52% | 2.44% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.26% | 1.00% | 4.26% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 3.68% | 2.45% | 1.23% |
| PMPhilip Morris International Inc. | 0.92% | 2.94% | 2.02% |
66.4% of CGUS is already inside NANC.
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 NANC?
CGUS has an expense ratio of 0.33% while NANC charges 0.72%. CGUS is the cheaper option, by $39 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CGUS or NANC?
Over the past year CGUS returned +15.39% vs +15.98% for NANC, so NANC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), CGUS annualized +19.69% vs +21.28% for NANC. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CGUS or NANC?
NANC has been the more volatile fund at 14.5% annualized versus 11.8% for CGUS. Worst drawdown: CGUS -18.1% vs NANC -20.9%.
Should I hold both CGUS and NANC?
CGUS and NANC have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, 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 NANC?
66.4% of CGUS's money is in holdings NANC also owns. 60.9% of NANC's is in holdings CGUS also owns. They hold 33 positions in common, counted across the 68 positions we hold weights for in CGUS and 89 in NANC.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGUS or NANC?
CGUS yields 0.83% while NANC yields 0.18%, so CGUS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is NANC better than CGUS?
CGUS has a lower expense ratio. NANC led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. CGUS is less concentrated, with 43.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.