CGDG vs. NZAC

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

CGDG (Capital Group Dividend Growers ETF) and NZAC (SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF) are both Global Equities funds. CGDG is actively managed, while NZAC is passively managed. Over the past year, CGDG returned 18.16% vs 20.64% for NZAC. Their 0.80 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CGDG charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for NZAC.

Performance

CGDG vs. NZAC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group Dividend Growers ETF (CGDG) and SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with CGDG having a 10.05% return and NZAC slightly higher at 10.53%.

CGDG

• 1D: 0.94%
• 1M: 2.09%
• 6M: 7.43%
• YTD: 10.05%
• 1Y: 18.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.45%

NZAC

• 1D: 1.92%
• 1M: 3.13%
• 6M: 10.13%
• YTD: 10.53%
• 1Y: 20.64%
• 3Y*: 18.61%
• 5Y*: 9.74%
• 10Y*: 11.95%
• ALL TIME*: 10.33%

*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)
CGDG Capital Group Dividend Growers ETF	$21.91M	$21.23M	$23.24M
NZAC SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF	$222.08K	$162.23K	$205.77K

CGDG vs. NZAC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CGDG Capital Group Dividend Growers ETF	10.05%	22.74%	11.52%	10.17%
NZAC SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF	10.53%	20.55%	16.67%	13.15%

Correlation

The correlation between CGDG and NZAC is 0.75, 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.	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2023	0.80

The correlation between CGDG and NZAC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CGDG vs. NZAC — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGDG

CGDG Risk / Return Rank: 64
CGDG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
CGDG Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
CGDG Omega Ratio Rank: 62
CGDG Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
CGDG Martin Ratio Rank: 68

NZAC

NZAC Risk / Return Rank: 54
NZAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
NZAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
NZAC Omega Ratio Rank: 51
NZAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
NZAC Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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.

CGDG vs. NZAC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group Dividend Growers ETF (CGDG) and SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC). 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.

	CGDG	NZAC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.70	1.48	+0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.41	2.09	+0.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.26	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.36	2.05	+0.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.30	8.11	+1.18

CGDG vs. NZAC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGDG Sharpe Ratio is 1.70, which is comparable to the NZAC Sharpe Ratio of 1.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGDG and NZAC, 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

CGDG vs. NZAC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGDG drawdown since its inception was -10.52%, smaller than the maximum NZAC drawdown of -33.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGDG and NZAC.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGDG	NZAC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.52%	-33.72%	+23.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.72%	-10.10%	+2.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.19%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-28.31%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-33.72%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.28%	-5.28%	+4.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.96%	2.55%	-0.59%

Volatility

CGDG vs. NZAC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Capital Group Dividend Growers ETF (CGDG) is 2.44%, while SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) has a volatility of 4.48%. This indicates that CGDG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NZAC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGDG	NZAC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.44%	4.48%	-2.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.50%	11.81%	-3.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.81%	14.13%	-3.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.04%	16.99%	-4.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.04%	17.09%	-5.05%

CGDG vs. NZAC - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGDG has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is higher than NZAC's 0.12% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGDG vs. NZAC - Dividend Comparison

CGDG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.22%, more than NZAC's 2.01% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGDG Capital Group Dividend Growers ETF	2.22%	1.95%	2.15%	0.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
NZAC SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF	2.01%	1.90%	1.88%	1.65%	1.81%	1.62%	1.59%	2.17%	2.53%	2.20%	2.00%	2.40%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGDG and NZAC in my portfolio?

CGDG and NZAC have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGDG or NZAC?

NZAC has higher volatility (4.48%) compared to CGDG (2.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGDG dropped -10.52% vs NZAC's -33.72%.

Which ETF is better, CGDG or NZAC?

On 1-year performance, NZAC leads with 20.64% vs 18.16% for CGDG. On fees, NZAC is cheaper at 0.12% per year. On volatility, CGDG has been the lower-risk option at 2.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGDG or NZAC?

Over the 1-year period, NZAC has performed better with a 20.64% return vs 18.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGDG or NZAC?

NZAC is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for CGDG.

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

CGDG has the higher dividend yield at 2.22%, compared with 2.01% for NZAC.

What is the main difference between CGDG and NZAC?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for CGDG and 0.12% for NZAC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGDG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.70 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.