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 MOAT: how they differ

DGRW and MOAT hold 12% of their weight in the same names, and DGRW returned more over the year.

WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund and VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DGRW and MOAT hold 12% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DGRW and MOAT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDGRWMOAT
NVIDIA CORP7.95%2.45%
BROADCOM INC2.34%2.43%
MICROSOFT CORP5.75%2.20%
APPLIED MATERIALS INC1.71%2.34%
META PLATFORMS INC2.97%1.17%
CHARLES SCHWAB CORP (THE)0.95%2.45%
HERSHEY COMPANY (THE)0.21%1.22%
AMPHENOL CORP0.19%1.50%
ZOETIS INC0.16%1.82%
JACK HENRY & ASSOCIATES INC0.07%1.33%
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC0.04%1.39%
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY0.03%1.28%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DGRWOnly in MOAT
APPLE INC 3.87%Masco Corp 2.96%
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 2.92%Kenvue Inc 2.59%
COCA-COLA COMPANY (THE) 2.88%Airbnb Inc 2.56%
HOME DEPOT INC (THE) 2.81%Palo Alto Networks Inc 2.51%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 2.34%Brown-Forman Corp 2.49%
ORACLE CORP 2.34%Datadog Inc 2.44%
ALPHABET INC 2.32%Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2.43%
ALPHABET INC 2.31%Danaher Corp 2.41%

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 Jun 30, 2026.

DGRW and MOAT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DGRW
WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund
MOAT
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerWisdomTreeVanEck
What it isU.S. Quality Dividend GrowthMorningstar Wide Moat
Total return, 1 year+12.4%+11.3%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−5.1 pts−6.2 pts
Expense ratio0.28%0.46%
Already in the S&P 50096.7%91.6%
Holdings19755

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%.

MOAT in plain words

MOAT is an index equity fund tracking the Morningstar Wide Moat. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +11.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.46% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 55 positions, with the top ten at 25.3%. It sat 5.7% below its high of Aug 27, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DGRW or MOAT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DGRW returned +12.4% and MOAT returned +11.3%, so DGRW returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DGRW or MOAT?
DGRW charges 0.28% a year and MOAT charges 0.46%, so DGRW is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DGRW and MOAT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 97% of DGRW and 92% of MOAT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 12% 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 MOAT, 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 MOAT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DGRW-MOAT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources