CGCV vs. FTA

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

CGCV (Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF) and FTA (First Trust Large Cap Value AlphaDEX Fund) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. CGCV is actively managed, while FTA is passively managed. Over the past year, CGCV returned 16.85% vs 31.73% for FTA. Their 0.76 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CGCV charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for FTA.

Performance

CGCV vs. FTA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF (CGCV) and First Trust Large Cap Value AlphaDEX Fund (FTA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGCV achieves a 9.48% return, which is significantly lower than FTA's 18.18% return.

CGCV

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.42%
• 6M: 7.36%
• YTD: 9.48%
• 1Y: 16.85%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 16.19%

FTA

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 2.70%
• 6M: 12.86%
• YTD: 18.18%
• 1Y: 31.73%
• 3Y*: 15.29%
• 5Y*: 11.21%
• 10Y*: 11.60%
• ALL TIME*: 8.58%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CGCV Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF	$9.30M	$11.27M	$10.55M
FTA First Trust Large Cap Value AlphaDEX Fund	$3.06M	$3.30M	$2.95M

CGCV vs. FTA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CGCV Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF	9.48%	16.62%	7.21%
FTA First Trust Large Cap Value AlphaDEX Fund	18.18%	14.94%	5.61%

Correlation

The correlation between CGCV and FTA is 0.68, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2024	0.76

The correlation between CGCV and FTA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGCV vs. FTA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGCV	FTA
Technology	26.3%	7.3%
Healthcare	13.1%	10.2%
Financial Services	11.3%	23.2%
Industrials	11.1%	8.8%
Consumer Defensive	10.4%	6.5%
Utilities	7.5%	11.1%
Consumer Cyclical	7.0%	9.3%
Energy	4.5%	9.2%
Communication Services	4.3%	4.6%
Basic Materials	2.7%	3.2%
Real Estate	1.7%	6.6%

Return for Risk

CGCV vs. FTA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CGCV

CGCV Risk / Return Rank: 67
CGCV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
CGCV Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
CGCV Omega Ratio Rank: 69
CGCV Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
CGCV Martin Ratio Rank: 68

FTA

FTA Risk / Return Rank: 94
FTA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
FTA Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
FTA Omega Ratio Rank: 92
FTA Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
FTA Martin Ratio Rank: 95

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CGCV vs. FTA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF (CGCV) and First Trust Large Cap Value AlphaDEX Fund (FTA). 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.

	CGCV	FTA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.61	2.63	-1.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.27	3.90	-1.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.46	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.01	5.93	-3.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.16	20.26	-12.10

CGCV vs. FTA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGCV Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is lower than the FTA Sharpe Ratio of 2.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGCV and FTA, 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

CGCV vs. FTA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGCV drawdown since its inception was -13.13%, smaller than the maximum FTA drawdown of -62.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGCV and FTA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGCV	FTA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.13%	-62.45%	+49.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.93%	-5.13%	-2.80%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.73%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.80%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-44.97%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.48%	-1.56%	+1.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.57%	-8.97%	+7.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.95%	1.50%	+0.45%

Volatility

CGCV vs. FTA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF (CGCV) is 2.17%, while First Trust Large Cap Value AlphaDEX Fund (FTA) has a volatility of 3.93%. This indicates that CGCV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FTA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGCV	FTA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.17%	3.93%	-1.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.35%	8.04%	-0.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.89%	11.61%	-1.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.37%	16.23%	-3.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.37%	19.85%	-7.48%

CGCV vs. FTA - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGCV has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is lower than FTA's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGCV vs. FTA - Dividend Comparison

CGCV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, less than FTA's 1.61% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGCV Capital Group Conservative Equity ETF	1.44%	1.44%	0.68%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FTA First Trust Large Cap Value AlphaDEX Fund	1.61%	1.89%	2.02%	2.10%	2.15%	1.54%	2.03%	1.88%	2.28%	1.53%	1.56%	2.05%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGCV and FTA in my portfolio?

CGCV and FTA have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGCV or FTA?

FTA has higher volatility (3.93%) compared to CGCV (2.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGCV dropped -13.13% vs FTA's -62.45%.

Which ETF is better, CGCV or FTA?

On 1-year performance, FTA leads with 31.73% vs 16.85% for CGCV. On fees, CGCV is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, CGCV has been the lower-risk option at 2.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGCV or FTA?

Over the 1-year period, FTA has performed better with a 31.73% return vs 16.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGCV or FTA?

CGCV is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for FTA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGCV or FTA?

FTA has the higher dividend yield at 1.61%, compared with 1.44% for CGCV.

What is the main difference between CGCV and FTA?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CGCV and 0.60% for FTA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FTA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.63 vs 1.61), 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.