XNTK vs. CGDV

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

XNTK (SPDR NYSE Technology ETF) and CGDV (Capital Group Dividend Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XNTK is a Technology Equities fund tracking the NYSE Technology Index, while CGDV is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Capital Group. XNTK is passively managed, while CGDV is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, XNTK returned 39.05%/yr vs 24.15%/yr for CGDV. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XNTK charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CGDV.

Performance

XNTK vs. CGDV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR NYSE Technology ETF (XNTK) 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, XNTK achieves a 32.86% return, which is significantly higher than CGDV's 11.55% return.

XNTK

• 1D: 0.69%
• 1M: 9.85%
• YTD: 32.86%
• 6M: 32.78%
• 1Y: 65.70%
• 3Y*: 39.05%
• 5Y*: 19.92%
• 10Y*: 25.25%

CGDV

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

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

XNTK vs. CGDV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
XNTK SPDR NYSE Technology ETF	32.86%	38.06%	23.49%	70.13%	-26.41%
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	11.55%	25.50%	20.10%	28.81%	-0.44%

Correlation

The correlation between XNTK and CGDV is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2022	0.77

The correlation between XNTK and CGDV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

XNTK vs. CGDV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XNTK	CGDV
Technology	83.3%	34.1%
Communication Services	8.6%	8.4%
Consumer Cyclical	8.0%	10.6%
Basic Materials	-	2.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	5.5%
Energy	-	3.8%
Financial Services	-	6.8%
Healthcare	-	11.5%
Industrials	-	13.2%
Real Estate	-	1.1%
Utilities	-	2.1%

Return for Risk

XNTK vs. CGDV — Risk / Return Rank

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

XNTK

XNTK Risk / Return Rank: 80
XNTK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
XNTK Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
XNTK Omega Ratio Rank: 81
XNTK Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
XNTK Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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

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.

XNTK vs. CGDV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR NYSE Technology ETF (XNTK) 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.

	XNTK	CGDV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.50	2.27	+0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.01	3.11	-0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.42	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.73	2.83	+0.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.16	13.19	-1.02

XNTK vs. CGDV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XNTK Sharpe Ratio is 2.50, which is comparable to the CGDV Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XNTK 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

XNTK vs. CGDV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XNTK drawdown since its inception was -72.38%, which is greater than CGDV's maximum drawdown of -21.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XNTK and CGDV.

Drawdown Indicators

	XNTK	CGDV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-72.38%	-21.82%	-50.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.00%	-9.75%	-7.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.11%	-14.28%	-13.83%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-48.28%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-48.28%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.70%	-0.98%	-3.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.28%	-3.60%	-17.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.21%	2.09%	+3.12%

Volatility

XNTK vs. CGDV - Volatility Comparison

SPDR NYSE Technology ETF (XNTK) has a higher volatility of 12.53% compared to Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV) at 4.52%. This indicates that XNTK's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGDV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XNTK	CGDV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.53%	4.52%	+8.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.87%	9.80%	+11.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.43%	12.13%	+13.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.25%	15.57%	+12.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.82%	15.57%	+11.25%

XNTK vs. CGDV - Expense Ratio Comparison

XNTK has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than CGDV's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

XNTK vs. CGDV - Dividend Comparison

XNTK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.17%, less than CGDV's 1.17% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
XNTK SPDR NYSE Technology ETF	0.17%	0.23%	0.42%	0.34%	0.85%	0.34%	0.30%	0.61%	29.64%	1.29%	0.81%	0.93%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XNTK and CGDV in my portfolio?

XNTK and CGDV have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XNTK or CGDV?

XNTK has higher volatility (12.53%) compared to CGDV (4.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XNTK dropped -72.38% vs CGDV's -21.82%.

Which ETF is better, XNTK or CGDV?

On 3-year performance, XNTK leads with 39.05% vs 24.15% for CGDV. 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, XNTK or CGDV?

Over the 3-year period, XNTK has performed better with a 39.05% return vs 24.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XNTK or CGDV?

CGDV is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for XNTK.

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

CGDV has the higher dividend yield at 1.17%, compared with 0.17% for XNTK.

What is the main difference between XNTK and CGDV?

XNTK is categorized as Technology Equities, while CGDV is Large Cap Value Equities. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for XNTK and 0.33% for CGDV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XNTK currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.50 vs 2.27), 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.