BINV vs. CGDG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BINV (Brandes International ETF) and CGDG (Capital Group Dividend Growers ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BINV is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund actively managed by Brandes, while CGDG is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Capital Group. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BINV returned 22.43% vs 15.66% for CGDG. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BINV charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for CGDG.

Performance

BINV vs. CGDG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brandes International ETF (BINV) and Capital Group Dividend Growers ETF (CGDG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BINV achieves a 5.45% return, which is significantly higher than CGDG's 4.98% return.

BINV

• 1D: -1.21%
• 1M: 0.62%
• YTD: 5.45%
• 6M: 7.37%
• 1Y: 22.43%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CGDG

• 1D: -0.45%
• 1M: 1.00%
• YTD: 4.98%
• 6M: 5.58%
• 1Y: 15.66%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BINV vs. CGDG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BINV Brandes International ETF	5.45%	37.84%	7.71%	12.66%
CGDG Capital Group Dividend Growers ETF	4.98%	22.74%	11.52%	11.75%

Correlation

The correlation between BINV and CGDG is 0.77, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 6, 2023	0.79

The correlation between BINV and CGDG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

BINV vs. CGDG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BINV	CGDG
Consumer Defensive	22.1%	10.1%
Healthcare	17.5%	8.8%
Consumer Cyclical	14.2%	7.8%
Technology	11.3%	14.1%
Industrials	10.7%	11.4%
Financial Services	7.8%	20.0%
Communication Services	5.4%	3.2%
Basic Materials	4.8%	5.0%
Energy	2.6%	7.8%
Real Estate	2.0%	3.2%
Utilities	1.6%	8.7%

Return for Risk

BINV vs. CGDG — Risk / Return Rank

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

BINV

BINV Risk / Return Rank: 44
BINV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
BINV Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
BINV Omega Ratio Rank: 45
BINV Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
BINV Martin Ratio Rank: 42

CGDG

CGDG Risk / Return Rank: 42
CGDG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
CGDG Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
CGDG Omega Ratio Rank: 39
CGDG Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
CGDG Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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.

BINV vs. CGDG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brandes International ETF (BINV) and Capital Group Dividend Growers ETF (CGDG). 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.

	BINV	CGDG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.62	1.48	+0.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.35	2.08	+0.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.26	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.96	2.04	-0.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.79	7.88	-1.09
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BINV vs. CGDG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BINV Sharpe Ratio is 1.62, which is comparable to the CGDG Sharpe Ratio of 1.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BINV and CGDG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BINV	CGDG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.62	1.48	+0.14
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.62	1.53	+0.09

Drawdowns

BINV vs. CGDG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BINV drawdown since its inception was -14.91%, which is greater than CGDG's maximum drawdown of -10.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BINV and CGDG.

Drawdown Indicators

	BINV	CGDG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.91%	-10.52%	-4.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.50%	-7.72%	-3.78%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.31%	-1.41%	-3.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.44%	-1.32%	-1.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.31%	1.99%	+1.32%

Volatility

BINV vs. CGDG - Volatility Comparison

Brandes International ETF (BINV) has a higher volatility of 4.15% compared to Capital Group Dividend Growers ETF (CGDG) at 3.24%. This indicates that BINV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGDG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BINV	CGDG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.15%	3.24%	+0.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.97%	8.28%	+2.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.89%	10.63%	+3.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.77%	12.16%	+2.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.77%	12.16%	+2.61%

BINV vs. CGDG - Expense Ratio Comparison

BINV has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than CGDG's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

BINV vs. CGDG - Dividend Comparison

BINV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.08%, more than CGDG's 1.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BINV Brandes International ETF	2.08%	2.23%	2.40%	0.28%
CGDG Capital Group Dividend Growers ETF	1.88%	1.95%	2.15%	0.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BINV and CGDG in my portfolio?

BINV and CGDG have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BINV or CGDG?

BINV has higher volatility (4.15%) compared to CGDG (3.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BINV dropped -14.91% vs CGDG's -10.52%.

Which ETF is better, BINV or CGDG?

On 1-year performance, BINV leads with 22.43% vs 15.66% for CGDG. On fees, CGDG is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, CGDG has been the lower-risk option at 3.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BINV or CGDG?

Over the 1-year period, BINV has performed better with a 22.43% return vs 15.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BINV or CGDG?

CGDG is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for BINV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BINV or CGDG?

BINV has the higher dividend yield at 2.08%, compared with 1.88% for CGDG.

What is the main difference between BINV and CGDG?

BINV is categorized as Foreign Large Cap Equities, while CGDG is Global Equities. They also come from different issuers: Brandes and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for BINV and 0.47% for CGDG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BINV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.62 vs 1.48), 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.