CGDV vs. AMZA

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

CGDV (Capital Group Dividend Value ETF) and AMZA (InfraCap MLP ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGDV is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Capital Group, while AMZA is a MLPs fund actively managed by Virtus Investment Partners. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CGDV returned 24.15%/yr vs 22.25%/yr for AMZA. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGDV charges 0.33%/yr vs 2.01%/yr for AMZA.

Performance

CGDV vs. AMZA - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGDV achieves a 11.55% return, which is significantly lower than AMZA's 21.82% return.

CGDV

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: 1.53%
• YTD: 11.55%
• 6M: 12.50%
• 1Y: 28.33%
• 3Y*: 24.15%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

AMZA

• 1D: 0.59%
• 1M: -3.43%
• YTD: 21.82%
• 6M: 21.02%
• 1Y: 15.58%
• 3Y*: 22.25%
• 5Y*: 17.67%
• 10Y*: 5.17%

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

CGDV vs. AMZA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	11.55%	25.50%	20.10%	28.81%	-0.44%
AMZA InfraCap MLP ETF	21.82%	0.17%	30.90%	23.35%	17.91%

Correlation

The correlation between CGDV and AMZA is 0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.07
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.31
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2022	0.44

Over the past year, the correlation between CGDV and AMZA has dropped to 0.07 - well below their long-term average of 0.44, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CGDV vs. AMZA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGDV	AMZA
Technology	34.1%	-
Industrials	13.2%	-
Healthcare	11.5%	-
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	-
Communication Services	8.4%	-
Financial Services	6.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.5%	-
Energy	3.8%	99.8%
Basic Materials	2.9%	-
Utilities	2.1%	0.2%
Real Estate	1.1%	-

Return for Risk

CGDV vs. AMZA — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

AMZA

AMZA Risk / Return Rank: 28
AMZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
AMZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
AMZA Omega Ratio Rank: 26
AMZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
AMZA Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

CGDV vs. AMZA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV) and InfraCap MLP ETF (AMZA). 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.

	CGDV	AMZA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.27	0.89	+1.38
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.11	1.33	+1.78
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.16	+0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.83	1.30	+1.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.19	3.23	+9.96

CGDV vs. AMZA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGDV Sharpe Ratio is 2.27, which is higher than the AMZA Sharpe Ratio of 0.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGDV and AMZA, 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

CGDV vs. AMZA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGDV drawdown since its inception was -21.82%, smaller than the maximum AMZA drawdown of -91.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGDV and AMZA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGDV	AMZA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.82%	-91.46%	+69.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.75%	-12.16%	+2.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.28%	-18.56%	+4.28%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.15%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-86.84%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.98%	-10.48%	+9.50%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.60%	-44.92%	+41.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.09%	4.87%	-2.78%

Volatility

CGDV vs. AMZA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV) is 4.52%, while InfraCap MLP ETF (AMZA) has a volatility of 5.43%. This indicates that CGDV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AMZA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGDV	AMZA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.52%	5.43%	-0.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.80%	13.60%	-3.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.13%	17.72%	-5.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.57%	25.84%	-10.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.57%	37.21%	-21.64%

CGDV vs. AMZA - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGDV has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is lower than AMZA's 2.01% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGDV vs. AMZA - Dividend Comparison

CGDV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.17%, less than AMZA's 8.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AMZA InfraCap MLP ETF	8.05%	8.81%	7.29%	9.40%	7.65%	10.24%	22.13%	19.47%	34.46%	24.16%	18.36%	18.21%
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	1.17%	1.29%	1.60%	1.65%	1.36%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGDV and AMZA in my portfolio?

CGDV and AMZA have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGDV or AMZA?

AMZA has higher volatility (5.43%) compared to CGDV (4.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGDV dropped -21.82% vs AMZA's -91.46%.

Which ETF is better, CGDV or AMZA?

On 3-year performance, CGDV leads with 24.15% vs 22.25% for AMZA. On fees, CGDV is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, CGDV has been the lower-risk option at 4.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGDV or AMZA?

Over the 3-year period, CGDV has performed better with a 24.15% return vs 22.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGDV or AMZA?

CGDV is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 2.01% for AMZA.

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

AMZA has the higher dividend yield at 8.05%, compared with 1.17% for CGDV.

What is the main difference between CGDV and AMZA?

CGDV is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while AMZA is MLPs. They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and Virtus Investment Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CGDV and 2.01% for AMZA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGDV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 0.89), 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.