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 ONEQ: how they differ

DGRO and ONEQ hold 19% of their weight in the same names, and ONEQ returned more over the year.

iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DGRO and ONEQ hold 19% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DGRO and ONEQ both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDGROONEQ
BROADCOM INC3.25%4.64%
APPLE INC2.94%10.04%
MICROSOFT CORP2.92%7.32%
CISCO SYSTEMS INC1.73%1.04%
WALMART INC0.95%2.02%
QUALCOMM INC1.10%0.58%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP0.52%0.93%
ANALOG DEVICES INC0.54%0.44%
PEPSICO INC1.70%0.43%
AMGEN INC1.11%0.40%
APPLIED MATERIALS INC0.38%0.78%
GILEAD SCIENCES INC0.78%0.36%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DGROOnly in ONEQ
JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY 3.05%NVIDIA CORP 11.24%
EXXON MOBIL CORP 2.91%AMAZON.COM INC 6.37%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 2.64%ALPHABET INC 4.85%
ABBVIE INC 2.53%ALPHABET INC 4.48%
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 2.32%TESLA INC 3.58%
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY (THE) 2.08%META PLATFORMS INC 3.03%
PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL INC 1.94%MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC 2.38%
HOME DEPOT INC (THE) 1.90%ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC 1.84%

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 May 31, 2026.

DGRO and ONEQ on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DGRO
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesFidelity
What it isCore Dividend GrowthNasdaq Composite
Total return, 1 year+17.4%+20.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.1 pts+3.1 pts
Expense ratio0.08%0.21%
Already in the S&P 50094.7%87.4%
Holdings3941022

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%.

ONEQ in plain words

ONEQ is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.21% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1022 positions, with the top ten at 57.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DGRO or ONEQ?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DGRO returned +17.4% and ONEQ returned +20.6%, so ONEQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DGRO or ONEQ?
DGRO charges 0.08% a year and ONEQ charges 0.21%, so DGRO is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DGRO and ONEQ overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of DGRO and 87% of ONEQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 19% 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 ONEQ, 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 ONEQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DGRO-ONEQ Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources