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 QQQM: how they differ

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

iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF.

What they hold in common

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

Positions DGRO and QQQM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDGROQQQM
BROADCOM INC3.25%3.37%
APPLE INC2.94%7.29%
MICROSOFT CORP2.92%5.32%
CISCO SYSTEMS INC1.73%2.09%
QUALCOMM INC1.10%1.18%
WALMART INC0.95%2.48%
PEPSICO INC1.70%0.87%
AMGEN INC1.11%0.80%
GILEAD SCIENCES INC0.78%0.73%
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC0.61%0.66%
ANALOG DEVICES INC0.54%0.89%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP0.52%1.86%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DGROOnly in QQQM
JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY 3.05%NVIDIA Corp. 8.16%
EXXON MOBIL CORP 2.91%Micron Technology, Inc. 4.80%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 2.64%Amazon.com, Inc. 4.62%
ABBVIE INC 2.53%Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 3.70%
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 2.32%Alphabet Inc. 3.52%
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY (THE) 2.08%Tesla, Inc. 3.46%
PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL INC 1.94%Alphabet Inc. 3.26%
HOME DEPOT INC (THE) 1.90%Meta Platforms, Inc. 2.97%

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 QQQM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DGRO
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
QQQM
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesInvesco
What it isCore Dividend GrowthNasdaq-100
Total return, 1 year+17.4%+23.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.1 pts+5.5 pts
Expense ratio0.08%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50094.7%96.7%
Holdings394101

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%.

QQQM in plain words

QQQM is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq-100. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +23.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 101 positions, with the top ten at 47.5%. It sat 4.1% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DGRO or QQQM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DGRO returned +17.4% and QQQM returned +23.0%, so QQQM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DGRO or QQQM?
DGRO charges 0.08% a year and QQQM charges 0.15%, so DGRO is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DGRO and QQQM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of DGRO and 97% of QQQM 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 QQQM, 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 QQQM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DGRO-QQQM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources