Screener
EFAD vs CGDG
ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF vs Capital Group Dividend Growers ETF
Key differences
- CGDG is significantly larger than EFAD — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- EFAD follows a index tracking strategy; CGDG uses active selection.
- EFAD has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| EFAD | CGDG | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.50% | 0.47% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $62M | $4.9B |
| Since | 2014 | 2023 |
| Dividend yield | 2.82% | 1.88% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | — | global |
| Strategy | index tracking | active selection |
| CAGR 1Y | +4.7% | +18.8% |
| CAGR 3Y | +6.1% | N/A |
| CAGR 5Y | +1.3% | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.25 | N/A |
| Volatility 1Y | 13.36% | 10.69% |
| Max drawdown | -35.74% | -10.52% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to EFAD and CGDG
Explore further