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

DGRO vs IWF: how they differ

DGRO and IWF hold 21% of their weight in the same names, and DGRO returned more over the year.

iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DGRO and IWF hold 21% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DGRO and IWF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDGROIWF
BROADCOM INC3.25%5.21%
APPLE INC2.94%6.72%
MICROSOFT CORP2.92%4.11%
ELI LILLY & COMPANY1.14%2.84%
VISA INC1.05%1.68%
CATERPILLAR INC0.79%1.44%
HOME DEPOT INC (THE)1.90%0.77%
ORACLE CORP0.81%0.74%
MASTERCARD INC0.61%1.23%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP0.52%0.54%
AMGEN INC1.11%0.41%
APPLIED MATERIALS INC0.38%1.70%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DGROOnly in IWF
JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY 3.05%NVIDIA CORPORATION 13.85%
EXXON MOBIL CORP 2.91%ALPHABET INC. 6.18%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 2.64%ALPHABET INC. 4.98%
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 2.32%MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 3.86%
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY (THE) 2.08%TESLA, INC. 3.65%
PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL INC 1.94%META PLATFORMS, INC. 3.01%
MERCK & COMPANY INC 1.75%ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 2.80%
CISCO SYSTEMS INC 1.73%GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1.15%

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.

DGRO and IWF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DGRO
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isCore Dividend GrowthRussell 1000 growth
Total return, 1 year+17.4%+7.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.1 pts−10.5 pts
Expense ratio0.08%0.18%
Already in the S&P 50094.7%93.6%
Holdings394368

DGRO in plain words

DGRO is an index equity fund tracking the Core Dividend Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 394 positions, with the top ten at 26.6%.

IWF in plain words

IWF is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 368 positions, with the top ten at 54.4%. It sat 5.0% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DGRO or IWF?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DGRO returned +17.4% and IWF returned +7.0%, so DGRO returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DGRO or IWF?
DGRO charges 0.08% a year and IWF charges 0.18%, so DGRO is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DGRO and IWF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of DGRO and 94% of IWF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 21% 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.

DGRO against IWF, 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, DGRO against IWF, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DGRO-IWF Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources