CGFS vs VOO

CGFS vs VOO

Which is better, CGFS or VOO?

VOO costs less.

VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.9%.

Lower Fees: VOOLess Concentrated: VOO

MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.

Side-by-Side Comparison

MetricCGFSVOO
Expense Ratio0.63%0.03%Best
AUM$113M$1.0T
Dividend Yield0.00%1.06%
Holdings365506
YTD Return+1.52%+13.55%Best
1Y Return-+13.22%
3Y Return (annualized)-+24.40%
5Y Return (annualized)-+12.44%
Top 10 Weight53.9%37.9%Best
Fund FamilyCG Advisory ServicesVanguard (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Blend
InceptionSep 16, 2026Sep 7, 2010

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

CGFS vs VOO growth

Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

CGFS vs VOO Performance

CG Flagship Equity ETF (CGFS) is an ETF from CG Advisory Services and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Year to date, CGFS is up 1.52% versus a gain of 13.55% for VOO.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

CGFS charges 0.63% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $63 vs $3 annually, a gap of $60 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGFS currently yields 0.00% against 1.06% for VOO.

Holdings Overlap

CGFS already in VOO41.8%
VOO already in CGFS83.8%

41.8% of CGFS's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 83.8% of VOO's money is in holdings CGFS also owns.

Most of VOO is already inside CGFS. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.

222 positions in common, counted across the 365 positions we hold weights for in CGFS and 504 in VOO, against full books of 365 and 506.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 277 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for CGFS (16.0% of the fund), and 119 for CGFS that do not appear in VOO (57.2%).

Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.

Top Shared Holdings

StockWeight in CGFSWeight in VOODifference
NVDANvidia Corp4.29%8.09%3.80%
AAPLApple, Inc3.96%7.04%3.08%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp2.07%5.70%3.63%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc2.21%3.85%1.64%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc2.44%3.01%0.57%
AVGOBroadcom Inc1.03%2.65%1.62%
GOOGAlphabet Inc. C0.82%2.40%1.58%
JPMJpmorgan Chase1.50%1.44%0.06%
METAMeta Platforms Inc1.04%1.90%0.86%
TSLATesla Inc0.40%1.57%1.17%

83.8% of VOO is already inside CGFS.

You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.

CGFSVOO

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, CGFS or VOO?

CGFS has an expense ratio of 0.63% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $60 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between CGFS and VOO?

83.8% of VOO's money is in holdings CGFS also owns. 83.8% of VOO's is in holdings CGFS also owns. They hold 222 positions in common, counted across the 365 positions we hold weights for in CGFS and 504 in VOO.

Which pays a higher dividend, CGFS or VOO?

CGFS yields 0.00% while VOO yields 1.06%, so VOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is VOO better than CGFS?

VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.