What does a 'no index tracked' status mean for these ETFs?

Fund A and Fund B both display 'not available' for the index they track. This typically indicates they are actively managed, meaning portfolio managers select holdings based on research rather than replicating a specific market benchmark like the S&P 500. For investors, this implies that performance relies heavily on manager skill and market judgement. Unlike passive funds, you cannot predict their holdings by looking at an index, as managers may adjust positions dynamically based on their valuation models.

How do expense ratios affect long-term investment outcomes?

The expense ratio is an annual fee deducted from a fund's assets. Fund A charges 0.15%, while Fund B charges 0.33%. A lower fee means less drag on returns over time. For example, on a hypothetical $10,000 investment, the difference amounts to $18 in fees annually. Over long periods, these small differences can compound, potentially leading to a noticeable gap in final asset values, assuming all other factors like market performance remain identical. Investors should view fees as a certain cost against uncertain future returns.

What is meant by 'Large Value' category classification?

Both funds are classified as 'Large Value'. This suggests they invest primarily in established, large-capitalisation companies whose share prices are considered low relative to fundamentals like earnings or book value. The goal is typically to buy undervalued companies and profit when the market eventually recognises their true worth. However, 'value' strategies can sometimes involve holding companies that struggle or remain undervalued for extended periods, requiring patience and an understanding that these stocks may lag during growth-led market rallies.

How do the top holdings of Fund A and Fund B compare?

While both funds share some technology exposure, their concentration levels differ significantly. Microsoft (MSFT) is the largest holding for both, but Fund B holds a much heavier position at 7.59% compared to Fund A's 3.30%. Similarly, Fund B has a 6.56% weighting in Nvidia, whereas Fund A holds no Nvidia in its top ten. Fund A maintains a more diversified top-ten structure with maximum single-stock weights below 3.5%, while Fund B exhibits higher concentration in its leading positions.

Which shared holdings appear in the top ten of both funds?

According to the provided data, only Microsoft (MSFT) and Meta (META) appear in the top-ten holdings of both funds. Fund A holds MSFT at 3.30% and META at 3.24%. Fund B holds MSFT at 7.59% and META at 5.06%. The presence of only two shared top-ten holdings indicates that despite both being 'Large Value' funds, their specific stock selection processes and portfolio constructions are quite distinct, reflecting different active management philosophies or risk appetites within the same broad category.

How do the dividend yields of these two funds compare?

Fund B offers a slightly higher dividend yield of 1.17% compared to Fund A's 1.11%. These yields are modest and reflect typical payouts for large-cap value equities, which often pay dividends to return cash to shareholders. However, a higher yield does not necessarily mean a better total return. Investors should consider the expense ratio difference (0.15% vs 0.33%) alongside the yield. In this case, the 0.06% yield advantage in Fund B is nearly offset by its higher 0.18% fee disadvantage.

What does net asset value (NAV) size tell us about these funds?

Fund B manages $38.3 billion in net assets, significantly larger than Fund A's $21.5 billion. Larger assets under management often suggest greater investor adoption and can improve liquidity, making it easier to trade large blocks of shares without moving the price. However, size is a double-edged sword; very large funds may find it harder to maintain agility in niche sectors or may be forced to buy more stocks to maintain diversification. Both funds, however, are well-capitalised entities suitable for institutional and retail trading.

How does the inception date impact performance history?

Fund A launched in September 2021, while Fund B launched in February 2022. Both have relatively short operating histories, meaning neither has been tested across a full, diverse market cycle spanning multiple decades. When evaluating active managers, a longer track record can provide more statistical confidence in their consistency. With both funds being less than five years old as of the data date, investors are looking at recent performance which may not fully reflect how these strategies behave during varied economic conditions like sustained recessions or high-inflation periods.

Does higher concentration in Fund B pose different risks?

Fund B has significant concentration, with its top three holdings (MSFT, NVDA, META) comprising over 19% of the portfolio. Fund A is less concentrated, with its top three holdings making up roughly 9.6%. Higher concentration can lead to larger swings in performance if specific large holdings outperform or underperform the broader market. While this can boost returns if managers are right, it increases idiosyncratic risk—the chance that company-specific events impact a substantial portion of the fund's value, rather than being diluted across many small positions.

Which fund is more cost-effective for buy-and-hold investors?

Strictly on the basis of fees, Fund A is more cost-effective with an expense ratio of 0.15% versus Fund B's 0.33%. For investors who hold funds for many years, lower fees help preserve more of the investment's gross return. Unless Fund B generates sufficiently higher alpha (excess return over the market) to cover the extra 0.18% annual fee, Fund A's cost structure provides a mathematical advantage. This assumes identical performance before fees, a simplification that highlights the importance of cost drag in long-term compounding.

How should beginners interpret the lack of sector weight data?

Both funds show 'not available' for sector weights. Beginners should not assume these funds have identical sector exposures. Instead, looking at top holdings provides clues. Both are heavily weighted in Information Technology and Communication Services due to large positions in MSFT, META, NVDA, and AVGO. Investors should review the funds' official fact sheets or prospectuses for detailed sector breakdowns, as top holdings alone do not capture the full portfolio diversity or concentration in smaller, non-top-10 sectors.

What are the key educational takeaways from this comparison?

This comparison illustrates that funds in the same category (Large Value) can differ widely in cost, concentration, and holdings. Fund A offers lower fees and more diversification, while Fund B provides higher assets, slightly better yield, and greater concentration in tech value leaders. Investors must weigh cost against strategy. Educational disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Always conduct independent research and consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions.

AVLV vs CGDV

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in September 2026.

Explore a detailed comparison between the Avantis U.S. Large Cap Value ETF (AVLV) and the Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV). This page examines their expense ratios, top holdings, dividend yields, and strategies for tracking the large value market segment. Gain a clearer understanding of how these two funds differ in structure and performance. Educational content, not financial advice.

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

AVLV

Metric

CGDV

0.15%

Expense Ratio

0.33%

1.11%

Dividend Yield

1.17%

$21.49B

Net Assets

$38.26B

303

Holdings

Sep 21, 2021

Inception Date

Feb 22, 2022

–

Index Tracked

–

Large Value

Fund Category

Large Value

AVLV costs about $18.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	AVLV	CGDV
MSFTMicrosoft Corporation	3.30%	7.59%
METAMeta Platforms, Inc.	3.24%	5.06%

Discover More Comparisons

AVLV vs AVUS

Compare AVLV and AVUS ETFs: both 0.15% fees, differing holdings, yields and tracking. Neutral overview of Avantis large-cap funds for research.

AVLV vs FNDX

Compare AVLV and FNDX on expense ratios (0.15% vs 0.25%), net assets, dividend yields, top holdings, and fundamental tracking methods for informed research.

AVLV vs VTV

Compare AVLV vs VTV on fees, dividends, and holdings. AVLV charges 0.15% with 1.11% yield; VTV costs 0.03% with 1.85% yield. Neutral data overview.

Investment Analysis

AVLV

Pros

Investors benefit from a low expense ratio of 0.15%, significantly cheaper than many active competitors in the large value space.
With $21.5 billion in net assets, the fund possesses substantial scale, which typically supports robust liquidity and operational stability for traders.
A dividend yield of 1.11% offers a modest income stream, consistent with a value-oriented strategy that prioritises total return alongside capital preservation.

Considerations

The fund lacks a publicly available index methodology, potentially complicating benchmark comparisons for investors who prefer transparent passive tracking standards.
Top holdings include significant weightings in non-traditional value names like Apple and Microsoft, which may dilute the pure value factor exposure.
Inception in September 2021 provides a relatively short operating history, limiting the assessment of long-term performance through varied market cycles.

CGDV

Pros

The fund holds $38.3 billion in net assets, indicating strong investor demand and high liquidity, which facilitates efficient trade execution for large positions.
A dividend yield of 1.17% provides a slightly higher income potential compared to some peers, appealing to investors seeking modest cash distributions.
Holding positions in established technology and industrial giants such as Microsoft and Nvidia offers exposure to sectors with strong recent growth trajectories.

Considerations

The expense ratio of 0.33% is more than double that of cheaper active alternatives, potentially eroding net returns over extended holding periods.
Concentration is high, with the top three holdings comprising over 19% of the portfolio, increasing sensitivity to idiosyncratic stock-specific risks.
Like its peer, the fund does not disclose a specific benchmark index, making it harder for investors to assess tracking error or style drift objectively.

About AVLV and CGDV

AVLV (AVLV)

The Avantis U.S. Large Cap Value ETF (AVLV) is an exchange-traded fund designed to provide exposure to large-capitalisation companies in the United States that are considered undervalued relative to their fundamentals. Launched in September 2021, this fund seeks to capture the value factor, which historically suggests that cheaper stocks may outperform more expensive ones over long periods. With a low expense ratio of 0.15%, it offers a cost-efficient way for investors to diversify their portfolios within the US equity market. The fund holds over 300 companies, providing broad exposure while maintaining a focus on value metrics. Investors should note that while value stocks can offer attractive opportunities, they may underperform growth stocks during certain market cycles. As with any investment, values can rise and fall, and returns are not guaranteed.

CGDV (CGDV)

The Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV) is a large-cap value fund designed to provide investors with exposure to dividend-paying companies. Launched in February 2022, it holds a concentrated portfolio of 59 positions, focusing on established firms with potential for income and value appreciation. The fund carries an expense ratio of 0.33%, which is moderate for an actively managed ETF strategy. With net assets of USD 38.26 billion, it offers substantial liquidity. Investors should note its current dividend yield of 1.17%, which provides modest income compared to high-yield sectors. As with all value strategies, performance can vary significantly depending on market cycles and economic conditions. It is important to remember that capital values can rise as well as fall, and dividends are not guaranteed. This fund suits those looking for a balanced approach to large-cap value investing within an ETF wrapper, but thorough personal research is always recommended before making any investment decisions.

Buy AVLV or CGDV in Nemo

🆓

Zero Commission

Trade stocks, ETFs, and more with zero commission. Keep more of your returns.

🔒

Trusted & Regulated

Part of Exinity Group 2015, serving over a million customers globally.

💰

6% Interest on Cash

Earn 6% AER on uninvested cash with daily interest payments.

AVLV vs CGDV

Fund Snapshot