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 VB: how they differ

DGRO and VB hold 7% of their weight in the same names, and DGRO returned more over the year.

iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF and Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DGRO and VB hold 7% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DGRO and VB both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDGROVB
ATMOS ENERGY CORP0.15%0.35%
EVERGY INC0.14%0.23%
NISOURCE INC0.13%0.14%
FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL INC0.13%0.15%
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY0.12%0.20%
ALLIANT ENERGY CORP0.12%0.12%
EAST WEST BANCORP INC0.12%0.21%
OVINTIV INC0.09%0.18%
CDW CORP0.08%0.22%
BROADRIDGE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS INC0.08%0.10%
DICKS SPORTING GOODS INC0.08%0.17%
NRG ENERGY INC0.08%0.38%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DGROOnly in VB
BROADCOM INC 3.25%Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 0.55%
JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY 3.05%Jabil Inc 0.49%
APPLE INC 2.94%REVOLUTION Medicines Inc 0.46%
MICROSOFT CORP 2.92%Astera Labs Inc 0.45%
EXXON MOBIL CORP 2.91%Natera Inc 0.45%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 2.64%Twilio Inc 0.38%
ABBVIE INC 2.53%MKS Instruments Inc 0.37%
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 2.32%Flex Ltd 0.36%

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 VB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DGRO
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
VB
Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesVanguard
What it isCore Dividend GrowthSmall-Cap
Total return, 1 year+17.4%+15.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.1 pts−2.3 pts
Expense ratio0.08%0.03%
Already in the S&P 50094.7%21.7%
Holdings3941311

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%.

VB in plain words

VB is an index equity fund tracking the Small-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +15.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 22% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1311 positions, with the top ten at 4.3%. It sat 5.1% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DGRO or VB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DGRO returned +17.4% and VB returned +15.2%, so DGRO returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DGRO or VB?
DGRO charges 0.08% a year and VB charges 0.03%, so VB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DGRO and VB overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of DGRO and 22% of VB by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 7% 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 VB, 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 VB, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DGRO-VB Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources