GDIV vs. TDVG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GDIV (Harbor Dividend Growth Leaders ETF) and TDVG (T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GDIV returned 15.21%/yr vs 14.55%/yr for TDVG. Their correlation of 0.89 means they have usually moved in the same direction. Both charge a 0.50% expense ratio.

Performance

GDIV vs. TDVG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Harbor Dividend Growth Leaders ETF (GDIV) 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, GDIV achieves a 13.44% return, which is significantly higher than TDVG's 10.93% return.

GDIV

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 1.97%
• 6M: 8.92%
• YTD: 13.44%
• 1Y: 23.99%
• 3Y*: 15.21%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.93%

TDVG

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 0.47%
• 6M: 9.09%
• YTD: 10.93%
• 1Y: 19.23%
• 3Y*: 14.55%
• 5Y*: 10.00%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.28%

*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)
GDIV Harbor Dividend Growth Leaders ETF	$154.83K	$211.08K	$199.90K
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	$2.11M	$3.07M	$2.63M

GDIV vs. TDVG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
GDIV Harbor Dividend Growth Leaders ETF	13.44%	10.81%	14.83%	16.45%	-1.01%
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	10.93%	14.80%	13.45%	13.95%	5.03%

Correlation

The correlation between GDIV and TDVG is 0.84, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.84
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 23, 2022	0.89

The correlation between GDIV and TDVG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

GDIV vs. TDVG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GDIV	TDVG
Financial Services	19.7%	19.3%
Industrials	19.3%	14.4%
Technology	18.4%	27.4%
Healthcare	15.5%	12.8%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	6.6%
Consumer Cyclical	7.3%	6.7%
Energy	5.8%	4.5%
Utilities	3.8%	3.2%
Basic Materials	1.4%	2.8%
Real Estate	1.2%	1.5%
Communication Services	-	0.8%

Return for Risk

GDIV vs. TDVG — Risk / Return Rank

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

GDIV

GDIV Risk / Return Rank: 78
GDIV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
GDIV Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
GDIV Omega Ratio Rank: 82
GDIV Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
GDIV Martin Ratio Rank: 77

TDVG

TDVG Risk / Return Rank: 80
TDVG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
TDVG Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
TDVG Omega Ratio Rank: 80
TDVG Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
TDVG Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

GDIV vs. TDVG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harbor Dividend Growth Leaders ETF (GDIV) 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.

	GDIV	TDVG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.90	1.87	+0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.73	2.69	+0.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.34	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.35	2.51	-0.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.80	10.48	-0.68

GDIV vs. TDVG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDIV Sharpe Ratio is 1.90, which is comparable to the TDVG Sharpe Ratio of 1.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDIV 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

GDIV vs. TDVG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDIV drawdown since its inception was -18.93%, roughly equal to the maximum TDVG drawdown of -19.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDIV and TDVG.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDIV	TDVG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.93%	-19.20%	+0.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.67%	-7.24%	-2.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.93%	-14.02%	-4.91%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.20%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.95%	-0.92%	-0.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.08%	-3.67%	+0.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.31%	1.73%	+0.58%

Volatility

GDIV vs. TDVG - Volatility Comparison

Harbor Dividend Growth Leaders ETF (GDIV) has a higher volatility of 2.66% compared to T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG) at 2.20%. This indicates that GDIV'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

	GDIV	TDVG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.66%	2.20%	+0.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.27%	7.30%	+1.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.95%	9.74%	+2.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.14%	13.87%	+1.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.14%	13.81%	+1.33%

GDIV vs. TDVG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GDIV and TDVG have an expense ratio of 0.50%.

Dividends

GDIV vs. TDVG - Dividend Comparison

GDIV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.13%, more than TDVG's 0.96% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GDIV Harbor Dividend Growth Leaders ETF	1.13%	1.19%	1.30%	2.27%	5.88%	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 GDIV and TDVG in my portfolio?

GDIV and TDVG have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GDIV or TDVG?

GDIV has higher volatility (2.66%) compared to TDVG (2.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDIV dropped -18.93% vs TDVG's -19.20%.

Which ETF is better, GDIV or TDVG?

On 3-year performance, GDIV leads with 15.21% vs 14.55% for TDVG. Both ETFs have the same 0.50% expense ratio. On volatility, TDVG has been the lower-risk option at 2.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GDIV or TDVG?

Over the 3-year period, GDIV has performed better with a 15.21% return vs 14.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDIV or TDVG?

GDIV and TDVG have the same expense ratio: 0.50% per year.

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

GDIV has the higher dividend yield at 1.13%, compared with 0.96% for TDVG.

What is the main difference between GDIV and TDVG?

They also come from different issuers: Harbor and T. Rowe Price.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GDIV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.90 vs 1.87), 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.