Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

ACWI vs DGRW: how they differ

ACWI and DGRW hold 36% of their weight in the same names, and ACWI returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and DGRW hold 36% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and DGRW both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWIDGRW
NVIDIA CORPORATION4.89%7.95%
APPLE INC.4.02%3.87%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION2.90%5.75%
ALPHABET INC.2.26%2.31%
BROADCOM INC.1.90%2.34%
ALPHABET INC.1.87%2.32%
META PLATFORMS, INC.1.34%2.97%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY0.76%1.53%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION0.66%1.59%
WALMART INC.0.58%0.94%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON0.56%2.34%
VISA INC.0.56%1.41%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in DGRW
AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.58%SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY 0.21%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%WESCO INTERNATIONAL INC 0.13%
TESLA, INC. 1.09%TOLL BROTHERS INC 0.13%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 0.86%ARAMARK 0.12%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 0.66%MUELLER INDUSTRIES INC 0.11%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 0.59%STIFEL FINANCIAL CORP 0.09%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 0.58%SEI INVESTMENTS COMPANY 0.09%
ASML Holding N.V. 0.56%DONALDSON COMPANY INC 0.09%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026 and Jun 30, 2026.

ACWI and DGRW on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
DGRW
WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesWisdomTree
What it isMSCI ACWIU.S. Quality Dividend Growth
Total return, 1 year+19.1%+12.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts−5.1 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.28%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%96.7%
Holdings2307197

ACWI in plain words

ACWI is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI ACWI. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +19.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.32% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 61% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2307 positions, with the top ten at 24.6%.

DGRW in plain words

DGRW is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Quality Dividend Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.28% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 197 positions, with the top ten at 36.2%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or DGRW?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and DGRW returned +12.4%, so ACWI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or DGRW?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and DGRW charges 0.28%, so DGRW is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and DGRW overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 97% of DGRW by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 36% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

ACWI against DGRW, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, ACWI against DGRW, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-DGRW Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources