BJAN vs. CGDV

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

BJAN (Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - January) and CGDV (Capital Group Dividend Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BJAN is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the S&P 500, while CGDV is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Capital Group. BJAN is passively managed, while CGDV is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BJAN returned 16.36%/yr vs 24.15%/yr for CGDV. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BJAN charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CGDV.

Performance

BJAN vs. CGDV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - January (BJAN) 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, BJAN achieves a 6.13% return, which is significantly lower than CGDV's 11.55% return.

BJAN

• 1D: 0.35%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 6.13%
• 6M: 7.42%
• 1Y: 19.73%
• 3Y*: 16.36%
• 5Y*: 10.40%
• 10Y*: —

CGDV

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: 0.35%
• YTD: 11.55%
• 6M: 12.50%
• 1Y: 28.33%
• 3Y*: 24.15%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BJAN vs. CGDV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BJAN Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - January	6.13%	14.81%	17.36%	23.66%	-3.76%
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	11.55%	25.50%	20.10%	28.81%	-0.44%

Correlation

The correlation between BJAN and CGDV is 0.87, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2022	0.90

The correlation between BJAN and CGDV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

BJAN vs. CGDV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BJAN	CGDV
Technology	36.2%	34.1%
Financial Services	11.9%	6.8%
Communication Services	10.9%	8.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	10.6%
Healthcare	8.4%	11.5%
Industrials	8.1%	13.2%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	5.5%
Energy	3.5%	3.8%
Utilities	2.3%	2.1%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.1%
Basic Materials	1.8%	2.9%

Return for Risk

BJAN vs. CGDV — Risk / Return Rank

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

BJAN

BJAN Risk / Return Rank: 81
BJAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
BJAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
BJAN Omega Ratio Rank: 86
BJAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
BJAN Martin Ratio Rank: 84

CGDV

CGDV Risk / Return Rank: 78
CGDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
CGDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
CGDV Omega Ratio Rank: 82
CGDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
CGDV Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

BJAN vs. CGDV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - January (BJAN) 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.

	BJAN	CGDV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.39	2.27	+0.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.32	3.11	+0.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.42	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.00	2.83	+0.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.94	13.19	+1.75

BJAN vs. CGDV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BJAN Sharpe Ratio is 2.39, which is comparable to the CGDV Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BJAN 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

BJAN vs. CGDV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BJAN drawdown since its inception was -26.86%, which is greater than CGDV's maximum drawdown of -21.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BJAN and CGDV.

Drawdown Indicators

	BJAN	CGDV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.86%	-21.82%	-5.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.27%	-9.75%	+3.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.81%	-14.28%	+0.47%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.38%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.06%	-0.98%	-0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.90%	-3.60%	+0.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.26%	2.09%	-0.83%

Volatility

BJAN vs. CGDV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - January (BJAN) is 2.23%, while Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV) has a volatility of 4.52%. This indicates that BJAN 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

	BJAN	CGDV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.23%	4.52%	-2.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.34%	9.80%	-3.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.87%	12.13%	-4.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.99%	15.57%	-3.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.06%	15.57%	-1.51%

BJAN vs. CGDV - Expense Ratio Comparison

BJAN has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than CGDV's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

BJAN vs. CGDV - Dividend Comparison

BJAN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CGDV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.17%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BJAN Innovator U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - January	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	4.66%
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	1.17%	1.29%	1.60%	1.65%	1.36%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BJAN and CGDV in my portfolio?

BJAN and CGDV have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BJAN or CGDV?

CGDV has higher volatility (4.52%) compared to BJAN (2.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BJAN dropped -26.86% vs CGDV's -21.82%.

Which ETF is better, BJAN or CGDV?

On 3-year performance, CGDV leads with 24.15% vs 16.36% for BJAN. On fees, CGDV is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, BJAN has been the lower-risk option at 2.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BJAN or CGDV?

Over the 3-year period, CGDV has performed better with a 24.15% return vs 16.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BJAN or CGDV?

CGDV is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for BJAN.

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

CGDV has the higher dividend yield at 1.17%, compared with 0.00% for BJAN.

What is the main difference between BJAN and CGDV?

BJAN is categorized as Defined Outcome, while CGDV is Large Cap Value Equities. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for BJAN and 0.33% for CGDV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BJAN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 2.27), 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.