CVLC vs. TDVG

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

CVLC (Calvert US Large-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF) and TDVG (T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. CVLC is passively managed, while TDVG is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CVLC returned 20.86%/yr vs 15.36%/yr for TDVG. Their correlation of 0.85 means they have usually moved in the same direction. CVLC charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for TDVG.

Performance

CVLC vs. TDVG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calvert US Large-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF (CVLC) and T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CVLC achieves a 13.62% return, which is significantly higher than TDVG's 11.24% return.

CVLC

• 1D: 1.46%
• 1M: 1.48%
• 6M: 11.48%
• YTD: 13.62%
• 1Y: 25.31%
• 3Y*: 20.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 21.03%

TDVG

• 1D: 0.28%
• 1M: 0.75%
• 6M: 8.65%
• YTD: 11.24%
• 1Y: 19.57%
• 3Y*: 15.36%
• 5Y*: 10.09%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.31%

*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)
CVLC Calvert US Large-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF	$2.52M	$3.35M	$3.05M
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	$1.88M	$3.02M	$2.62M

CVLC vs. TDVG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CVLC Calvert US Large-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF	13.62%	16.13%	24.20%	19.04%
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	11.24%	14.80%	13.45%	10.26%

Correlation

The correlation between CVLC and TDVG is 0.79, 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.	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 1, 2023	0.85

The correlation between CVLC and TDVG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

CVLC vs. TDVG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CVLC	TDVG
Technology	38.1%	27.4%
Financial Services	13.2%	19.3%
Industrials	10.2%	14.4%
Healthcare	10.0%	12.8%
Consumer Cyclical	8.0%	6.7%
Communication Services	7.4%	0.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	6.6%
Real Estate	2.8%	1.5%
Basic Materials	2.6%	2.8%
Utilities	2.3%	3.2%
Energy	0.4%	4.5%

Return for Risk

CVLC vs. TDVG — Risk / Return Rank

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

CVLC

CVLC Risk / Return Rank: 77
CVLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
CVLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
CVLC Omega Ratio Rank: 76
CVLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
CVLC Martin Ratio Rank: 82

TDVG

TDVG Risk / Return Rank: 82
TDVG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
TDVG Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
TDVG Omega Ratio Rank: 83
TDVG Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
TDVG Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

CVLC vs. TDVG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calvert US Large-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF (CVLC) and T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG). 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.

	CVLC	TDVG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.89	2.03	-0.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.66	2.91	-0.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.37	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.65	2.72	-0.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.63	11.32	+0.31

CVLC vs. TDVG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CVLC Sharpe Ratio is 1.89, which is comparable to the TDVG Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CVLC and TDVG, 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

CVLC vs. TDVG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CVLC drawdown since its inception was -19.92%, roughly equal to the maximum TDVG drawdown of -19.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CVLC and TDVG.

Drawdown Indicators

	CVLC	TDVG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.92%	-19.20%	-0.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.61%	-7.24%	-2.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.92%	-14.02%	-5.90%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.20%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.64%	+0.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.36%	-3.66%	+1.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.18%	1.73%	+0.45%

Volatility

CVLC vs. TDVG - Volatility Comparison

Calvert US Large-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF (CVLC) has a higher volatility of 3.95% compared to T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG) at 2.11%. This indicates that CVLC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TDVG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CVLC	TDVG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.95%	2.11%	+1.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.79%	7.30%	+3.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.45%	9.68%	+3.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.56%	13.87%	+1.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.56%	13.80%	+1.76%

CVLC vs. TDVG - Expense Ratio Comparison

CVLC has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than TDVG's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

CVLC vs. TDVG - Dividend Comparison

CVLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.91%, less than TDVG's 0.96% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CVLC Calvert US Large-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF	0.91%	1.02%	1.03%	0.91%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	0.96%	1.00%	1.06%	1.31%	1.15%	0.80%	0.40%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CVLC and TDVG in my portfolio?

CVLC and TDVG have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CVLC or TDVG?

CVLC has higher volatility (3.95%) compared to TDVG (2.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CVLC dropped -19.92% vs TDVG's -19.20%.

Which ETF is better, CVLC or TDVG?

On 3-year performance, CVLC leads with 20.86% vs 15.36% for TDVG. On fees, CVLC is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, TDVG has been the lower-risk option at 2.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CVLC or TDVG?

Over the 3-year period, CVLC has performed better with a 20.86% return vs 15.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CVLC or TDVG?

CVLC is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for TDVG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CVLC or TDVG?

TDVG has the higher dividend yield at 0.96%, compared with 0.91% for CVLC.

What is the main difference between CVLC and TDVG?

They also come from different issuers: Calvert and T. Rowe Price. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for CVLC and 0.50% for TDVG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TDVG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 1.89), 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.