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

DGRW vs FBCG: how they differ

DGRW and FBCG hold 33% of their weight in the same names, and FBCG returned more over the year.

WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DGRW and FBCG hold 33% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DGRW and FBCG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDGRWFBCG
NVIDIA CORP7.95%14.62%
MICROSOFT CORP5.75%5.20%
APPLE INC3.87%9.64%
META PLATFORMS INC2.97%3.90%
BROADCOM INC2.34%3.74%
ALPHABET INC2.31%9.10%
ELI LILLY & COMPANY1.53%2.25%
GILEAD SCIENCES INC1.25%0.69%
MASTERCARD INC0.59%0.81%
ORACLE CORP2.34%0.49%
ABBVIE INC2.07%0.42%
GE AEROSPACE0.63%0.40%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DGRWOnly in FBCG
COCA-COLA COMPANY (THE) 2.88%AMAZON.COM INC 8.43%
ALPHABET INC 2.32%NETFLIX INC 2.23%
APPLIED MATERIALS INC 1.71%MARVELL TECHNOLOGY INC 2.03%
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP 1.59%TESLA INC 1.45%
MCDONALD'S CORP 1.57%APPLOVIN CORP 1.26%
T-MOBILE US INC 1.48%WESTERN DIGITAL CORP 1.19%
CISCO SYSTEMS INC 1.44%TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG CO LTD 1.12%
MERCK & COMPANY INC 1.18%CELESTICA INC 0.88%

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.

DGRW and FBCG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DGRW
WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerWisdomTreeFidelity
What it isU.S. Quality Dividend GrowthBlue Chip Growth
Total return, 1 year+12.4%+17.3%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−5.1 pts−0.2 pts
Expense ratio0.28%0.57%
Already in the S&P 50096.7%86.8%
Holdings197214

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%.

FBCG in plain words

FBCG is an index equity fund tracking the Blue Chip Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.57% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 214 positions, with the top ten at 61.2%. It sat 3.7% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DGRW or FBCG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DGRW returned +12.4% and FBCG returned +17.3%, so FBCG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DGRW or FBCG?
DGRW charges 0.28% a year and FBCG charges 0.57%, so DGRW is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DGRW and FBCG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 97% of DGRW and 87% of FBCG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 33% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources