CGIE
Price
$36.18
Change
-$0.49 (-1.34%)
Updated
Jul 13 closing price
Net Assets
2.32B
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
IDHQ
Price
$42.99
Change
-$0.46 (-1.06%)
Updated
Jul 13 closing price
Net Assets
919.81M
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
Interact to see
Advertisement

CGIE vs IDHQ

CGIE vs IDHQ Comparison Chart in %
loading
loading
View a ticker or compare two or three

Which ETF would AI Choose? Capital Group International Equity ETF (CGIE) vs. Invesco S&P International Developed Quality ETF (IDHQ)

Key Takeaways

  • Capital Group International Equity ETF (CGIE) is an actively managed fund offering flexible exposure to international equities outside the United States, while Invesco S&P International Developed Quality ETF (IDHQ) provides passive, rules-based exposure to high-quality companies in developed markets ex-U.S.
  • CGIE maintains a concentrated portfolio of approximately 72 holdings with higher expense ratio of 0.54%, whereas IDHQ holds roughly 200 stocks and features a lower expense ratio of 0.29%.
  • Sector allocations show both ETFs with significant weight in industrials and technology, but IDHQ emphasizes healthcare and quality factors such as return on equity, while CGIE includes broader financial services exposure and potential emerging market participation.
  • CGIE employs active stock selection for long-term capital growth, contrasting with IDHQ's semi-annual rebalancing to a quality index focused on financial strength metrics.
  • Cost efficiency favors IDHQ for long-term buy-and-hold investors, while CGIE may appeal to those seeking active management in international markets.
  • Both ETFs target similar investor goals of international diversification but differ in strategy type, diversification breadth, and expense structures, influencing relative positioning across market cycles.

Introduction

Investors seeking international equity exposure often compare actively managed and factor-based passive strategies to align with risk tolerance and return objectives. Capital Group International Equity ETF (CGIE) and Invesco S&P International Developed Quality ETF (IDHQ) both provide access to non-U.S. equities yet pursue distinct approaches. CGIE offers active management across developed and emerging markets outside the United States, while IDHQ delivers systematic exposure to quality-rated companies in developed markets. These ETFs serve as alternatives rather than direct competitors, allowing investors to evaluate trade-offs in cost, concentration, and methodology within the broader international equity category.

Capital Group International Equity ETF (CGIE) Overview

The Capital Group International Equity ETF (CGIE) is an actively managed exchange-traded fund that seeks long-term growth of capital through investments in equity securities of companies located outside the United States, spanning both developed and emerging markets. The fund typically holds around 72 securities, with top positions including companies such as ASML Holding, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, AstraZeneca, Tokyo Electron, and TotalEnergies. Sector allocations commonly feature industrials at approximately 25 percent, technology near 22 percent, and financial services around 20 percent. The expense ratio stands at 0.54 percent. As an actively managed vehicle, CGIE relies on portfolio manager discretion rather than strict index replication, enabling potential adjustments to holdings and sector weights based on fundamental research. This structure distinguishes it from passive alternatives by emphasizing capital appreciation and principal conservation through selective international opportunities.

Invesco S&P International Developed Quality ETF (IDHQ) Overview

The Invesco S&P International Developed Quality ETF (IDHQ) is a passively managed exchange-traded fund designed to track the performance of the S&P Quality Developed ex-U.S. LargeMidCap Index. The index selects stocks from developed markets outside the United States based on high quality scores derived from return on equity, accruals ratio, and financial leverage ratio. The fund generally holds between 190 and 215 securities, with top holdings often including ASML Holding, Roche Holding, Novartis, Nestlé, and Rolls-Royce Holdings. Sector weights typically emphasize industrials near 22 percent, healthcare around 18 percent, and technology approximately 17 to 19 percent. The expense ratio is 0.29 percent. Rebalancing and reconstitution occur semi-annually. This rules-based quality factor approach provides systematic exposure to financially robust companies, offering a lower-cost, transparent alternative within the international developed equity space.

Industry and Thematic Backdrop

The international equity landscape, particularly developed markets outside the United States, faces ongoing influences from global economic growth differentials, interest rate environments, and sector-specific earnings trends. Capital flows into quality-focused strategies have persisted amid investor preference for companies demonstrating strong balance sheets and consistent profitability. Regulatory developments in Europe and Asia, along with supply chain realignments, continue to shape opportunities in industrials and technology. Macroeconomic drivers such as inflation moderation and monetary policy shifts affect valuations across healthcare and consumer sectors. Risks include geopolitical tensions, currency fluctuations, and slower growth in certain regions. Both ETFs operate within this environment, where quality characteristics and active selection can help navigate volatility associated with international market cycles.

Performance and Positioning Comparison

In recent market cycles, Capital Group International Equity ETF (CGIE) has exhibited positioning that benefits from active adjustments to holdings amid shifts in global demand and earnings momentum. Its concentrated approach may lead to differentiated outcomes during periods of sector rotation favoring financials or specific technology names. Invesco S&P International Developed Quality ETF (IDHQ), by contrast, has shown resilience through its emphasis on high-quality metrics, often resulting in lower volatility relative to broader international benchmarks during equity market drawdowns. Relative performance dynamics tie to factors such as interest rate expectations influencing growth stocks and commodity trends affecting energy and materials exposure. IDHQ tends to maintain steadier positioning in defensive healthcare names, while CGIE allows flexibility that can capture emerging opportunities or mitigate risks across developed and emerging segments. These differences highlight varying risk exposures and potential responses to macroeconomic shifts.

AI Screener

Tickeron’s AI Screener is an AI-powered stock and ETF discovery tool that helps traders and investors filter the market based on technical patterns, fundamentals, trends, volatility, and AI-driven signals. Users can scan thousands of stocks and ETFs using customizable filters such as industry, market capitalization, technical indicators, price patterns, and performance metrics. The screener helps identify trade ideas, trending stocks, breakout candidates, and market opportunities more efficiently than manual screening. Explore the AI Screener to uncover additional insights and opportunities aligned with your investment criteria.

Tickeron AI Verdict

Based on observable factors including lower expense ratio, broader diversification, systematic quality methodology, and consistent positioning in defensive sectors, Tickeron’s AI would likely assign a higher probability of favorable risk-adjusted outcomes to Invesco S&P International Developed Quality ETF (IDHQ) in the current environment. The passive structure and cost efficiency provide structural advantages for many investors seeking international developed market exposure, though Capital Group International Equity ETF (CGIE) may suit those prioritizing active management flexibility.

Disclaimer

The information on this webpage is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended as investment advice, a recommendation to purchase or sell any security, or an offer or solicitation related to investments. It does not consider your personal financial situation, goals, or risk profile, and all investing carries inherent risks, including the possibility of losing your entire investment. For more details, please review our full disclaimer.

Disclaimers and Limitations

VS
CGIE vs. IDHQ commentary
Jul 14, 2026

To compare these two companies we present long-term analysis, their fundamental ratings and make comparative short-term technical analysis which are presented below. The conclusion is CGIE is a Hold and IDHQ is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
CGIE has more net assets: 2.32B vs. IDHQ (920M). IDHQ has a higher annual dividend yield than CGIE: IDHQ (23.963) vs CGIE (4.953). CGIE was incepted earlier than IDHQ: CGIE (3 years) vs IDHQ (19 years). IDHQ (0.29) has a lower expense ratio than CGIE (0.54). IDHQ has a higher turnover CGIE (22.00) vs CGIE (22.00).
CGIEIDHQCGIE / IDHQ
Gain YTD4.95323.96321%
Net Assets2.32B920M252%
Total Expense Ratio0.540.29186%
Turnover22.0041.0054%
Yield1.372.0168%
Fund Existence3 years19 years-
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
CGIEIDHQ
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
73%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
68%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
77%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
84%
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
86%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
79%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
80%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
74%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
80%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
84%
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
81%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
84%
Bullish Trend 8 days ago
82%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 6 days ago
67%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
81%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
82%
N/A
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
86%
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
81%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
CGIE
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
IDHQ
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
MFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
LMVRX133.03N/A
N/A
ClearBridge Value R
HFMDX26.69N/A
N/A
Hennessy Cornerstone Mid Cap 30 Inv
FCIKX18.58-0.07
-0.38%
NYLI PineStone International Eq Inv Cl
MECDX16.68-0.12
-0.71%
NYLI Epoch Capital Growth Class A
RAFGX46.59-0.54
-1.15%
American Funds AMCAP R-6

CGIE and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CGIE has been loosely correlated with NWG. These tickers have moved in lockstep 65% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CGIE jumps, then NWG could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CGIE
1D Price
Change %
CGIE100%
-1.34%
NWG - CGIE
65%
Loosely correlated
-1.46%
TSM - CGIE
60%
Loosely correlated
-2.89%
BN - CGIE
57%
Loosely correlated
-0.85%
AIR - CGIE
56%
Loosely correlated
-3.52%
BA - CGIE
48%
Loosely correlated
-3.05%
More

IDHQ and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, IDHQ has been closely correlated with STM. These tickers have moved in lockstep 70% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if IDHQ jumps, then STM could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To IDHQ
1D Price
Change %
IDHQ100%
-1.06%
STM - IDHQ
70%
Closely correlated
-4.18%
BHP - IDHQ
65%
Loosely correlated
-0.38%
RIO - IDHQ
62%
Loosely correlated
-0.76%
MT - IDHQ
56%
Loosely correlated
-0.24%
CP - IDHQ
55%
Loosely correlated
+1.36%
More