BAMD vs. CGDV

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

BAMD (Brookstone Dividend Stock ETF) and CGDV (Capital Group Dividend Value ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BAMD returned 11.67% vs 29.46% for CGDV. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BAMD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CGDV.

Performance

BAMD vs. CGDV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brookstone Dividend Stock ETF (BAMD) and Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BAMD achieves a 10.29% return, which is significantly lower than CGDV's 12.24% return.

BAMD

• 1D: 0.43%
• 1M: 0.63%
• YTD: 10.29%
• 6M: 10.07%
• 1Y: 11.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CGDV

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 1.81%
• YTD: 12.24%
• 6M: 11.91%
• 1Y: 29.46%
• 3Y*: 24.61%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BAMD vs. CGDV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BAMD Brookstone Dividend Stock ETF	10.29%	-1.33%	19.76%	10.73%
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	12.24%	25.50%	20.10%	13.47%

Correlation

The correlation between BAMD and CGDV is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2023	0.55

The correlation between BAMD and CGDV shifts across timeframes, from 0.44 (1 year) to 0.55 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BAMD vs. CGDV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BAMD	CGDV
Financial Services	26.4%	6.6%
Energy	14.8%	4.4%
Technology	14.6%	33.1%
Consumer Defensive	12.6%	6.0%
Utilities	12.3%	1.0%
Industrials	4.4%	12.9%
Healthcare	4.2%	10.4%
Communication Services	4.0%	8.3%
Consumer Cyclical	3.7%	11.3%
Basic Materials	2.7%	2.8%
Real Estate	0.5%	1.1%

Return for Risk

BAMD vs. CGDV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BAMD

BAMD Risk / Return Rank: 31
BAMD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
BAMD Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
BAMD Omega Ratio Rank: 28
BAMD Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
BAMD Martin Ratio Rank: 32

CGDV

CGDV Risk / Return Rank: 75
CGDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
CGDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
CGDV Omega Ratio Rank: 79
CGDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
CGDV Martin Ratio Rank: 76

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BAMD vs. CGDV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Dividend Stock ETF (BAMD) and Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BAMD	CGDV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.08	2.42	-1.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.61	3.30	-1.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.45	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.68	3.03	-1.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.43	14.15	-9.72

BAMD vs. CGDV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAMD Sharpe Ratio is 1.08, which is lower than the CGDV Sharpe Ratio of 2.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAMD and CGDV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BAMD vs. CGDV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAMD drawdown since its inception was -15.91%, smaller than the maximum CGDV drawdown of -21.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMD and CGDV.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAMD	CGDV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.91%	-21.82%	+5.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.99%	-9.75%	+2.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.28%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.03%	-0.75%	-0.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.22%	-3.59%	-0.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.64%	2.09%	+0.55%

Volatility

BAMD vs. CGDV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Brookstone Dividend Stock ETF (BAMD) is 3.28%, while Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV) has a volatility of 4.50%. This indicates that BAMD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGDV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BAMD	CGDV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.28%	4.50%	-1.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.14%	9.88%	-2.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.89%	12.25%	-1.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.32%	15.57%	-2.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.32%	15.57%	-2.25%

BAMD vs. CGDV - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAMD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than CGDV's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

BAMD vs. CGDV - Dividend Comparison

BAMD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.49%, more than CGDV's 1.16% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BAMD Brookstone Dividend Stock ETF	3.49%	3.86%	4.21%	0.70%	0.00%
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	1.16%	1.29%	1.60%	1.65%	1.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BAMD and CGDV in my portfolio?

BAMD and CGDV have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BAMD or CGDV?

CGDV has higher volatility (4.50%) compared to BAMD (3.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMD dropped -15.91% vs CGDV's -21.82%.

Which ETF is better, BAMD or CGDV?

On 1-year performance, CGDV leads with 29.46% vs 11.67% for BAMD. On fees, CGDV is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, BAMD has been the lower-risk option at 3.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAMD or CGDV?

Over the 1-year period, CGDV has performed better with a 29.46% return vs 11.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BAMD or CGDV?

CGDV is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BAMD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BAMD or CGDV?

BAMD has the higher dividend yield at 3.49%, compared with 1.16% for CGDV.

What is the main difference between BAMD and CGDV?

They also come from different issuers: Brookstone and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BAMD and 0.33% for CGDV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGDV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.42 vs 1.08), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.