MSTB vs. CGDV

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MSTB (LHA Market State Tactical Beta ETF) and CGDV (Capital Group Dividend Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MSTB is a Equity Hedged fund tracking the S&P 500® Index, while CGDV is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Capital Group. MSTB is passively managed, while CGDV is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, MSTB returned 17.08%/yr vs 24.17%/yr for CGDV. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MSTB charges 1.40%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CGDV.

Performance

MSTB vs. CGDV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LHA Market State Tactical Beta ETF (MSTB) and Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MSTB achieves a 5.84% return, which is significantly lower than CGDV's 11.07% return.

MSTB

• 1D: -1.22%
• 1M: -1.58%
• YTD: 5.84%
• 6M: 4.97%
• 1Y: 17.06%
• 3Y*: 17.08%
• 5Y*: 7.95%
• 10Y*: —

CGDV

• 1D: -1.04%
• 1M: 0.75%
• YTD: 11.07%
• 6M: 10.39%
• 1Y: 27.24%
• 3Y*: 24.17%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MSTB vs. CGDV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
MSTB LHA Market State Tactical Beta ETF	5.84%	18.57%	18.82%	16.94%	-12.76%
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	11.07%	25.50%	20.10%	28.81%	-0.44%

Correlation

The correlation between MSTB and CGDV is 0.86, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2022	0.85

The correlation between MSTB and CGDV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

MSTB vs. CGDV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MSTB	CGDV
Technology	39.0%	33.1%
Financial Services	11.1%	6.6%
Communication Services	10.6%	8.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	11.3%
Healthcare	8.3%	10.4%
Industrials	7.8%	12.9%
Consumer Defensive	4.5%	6.0%
Energy	3.1%	4.4%
Utilities	2.1%	1.0%
Real Estate	1.8%	1.1%
Basic Materials	1.7%	2.8%

Return for Risk

MSTB vs. CGDV — Risk / Return Rank

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

MSTB

MSTB Risk / Return Rank: 48
MSTB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
MSTB Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
MSTB Omega Ratio Rank: 49
MSTB Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
MSTB Martin Ratio Rank: 49

CGDV

CGDV Risk / Return Rank: 69
CGDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
CGDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
CGDV Omega Ratio Rank: 73
CGDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
CGDV Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

MSTB vs. CGDV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LHA Market State Tactical Beta ETF (MSTB) and Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV). 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.

	MSTB	CGDV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.61	2.23	-0.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.20	3.06	-0.87
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.41	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.06	2.81	-0.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.62	13.07	-5.45

MSTB vs. CGDV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MSTB Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is comparable to the CGDV Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MSTB and CGDV, 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

MSTB vs. CGDV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MSTB drawdown since its inception was -25.64%, which is greater than CGDV's maximum drawdown of -21.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MSTB and CGDV.

Drawdown Indicators

	MSTB	CGDV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.64%	-21.82%	-3.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.31%	-9.75%	+1.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.81%	-14.28%	+3.47%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.64%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.22%	-1.79%	-1.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.13%	-3.59%	-3.54%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.24%	2.09%	+0.15%

Volatility

MSTB vs. CGDV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for LHA Market State Tactical Beta ETF (MSTB) is 3.90%, while Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV) has a volatility of 4.64%. This indicates that MSTB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGDV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MSTB	CGDV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.90%	4.64%	-0.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.99%	9.92%	-1.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.67%	12.28%	-1.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.03%	15.57%	-1.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.86%	15.57%	-1.71%

MSTB vs. CGDV - Expense Ratio Comparison

MSTB has a 1.40% expense ratio, which is higher than CGDV's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

MSTB vs. CGDV - Dividend Comparison

MSTB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%, less than CGDV's 1.18% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	1.18%	1.29%	1.60%	1.65%	1.36%	0.00%	0.00%
MSTB LHA Market State Tactical Beta ETF	0.39%	0.41%	0.95%	0.16%	1.34%	2.20%	1.78%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MSTB and CGDV in my portfolio?

MSTB and CGDV have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MSTB or CGDV?

CGDV has higher volatility (4.64%) compared to MSTB (3.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MSTB dropped -25.64% vs CGDV's -21.82%.

Which ETF is better, MSTB or CGDV?

On 3-year performance, CGDV leads with 24.17% vs 17.08% for MSTB. On fees, CGDV is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, MSTB has been the lower-risk option at 3.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MSTB or CGDV?

Over the 3-year period, CGDV has performed better with a 24.17% return vs 17.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MSTB or CGDV?

CGDV is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 1.40% for MSTB.

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

CGDV has the higher dividend yield at 1.18%, compared with 0.39% for MSTB.

What is the main difference between MSTB and CGDV?

MSTB is categorized as Equity Hedged, while CGDV is Large Cap Value Equities. They also come from different issuers: Little Harbor Advisors and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 1.40% for MSTB and 0.33% for CGDV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGDV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 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.