Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
DGRW vs RSP: how they differ
DGRW and RSP hold 20% of their weight in the same names, and RSP returned more over the year.
WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, DGRW and RSP hold 20% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | DGRW | RSP |
|---|---|---|
| TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC | 0.98% | 0.27% |
| QUALCOMM INC | 0.76% | 0.26% |
| UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC | 2.92% | 0.25% |
| ANALOG DEVICES INC | 0.98% | 0.24% |
| CATERPILLAR INC | 1.80% | 0.24% |
| CORNING INC | 1.23% | 0.24% |
| STEEL DYNAMICS INC | 0.26% | 0.24% |
| UNITED RENTALS INC | 0.28% | 0.24% |
| BROADCOM INC | 2.34% | 0.24% |
| APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT INC | 0.24% | 0.23% |
| CUMMINS INC | 0.78% | 0.23% |
| KLA CORP | 0.39% | 0.23% |
| Only in DGRW | Only in RSP |
|---|---|
| FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0.28% | Intel Corp. 0.38% |
| FIRST CITIZENS BANCSHARES INC 0.19% | Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.34% |
| RELIANCE INC 0.15% | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 0.33% |
| WESCO INTERNATIONAL INC 0.13% | ON Semiconductor Corp. 0.33% |
| TOLL BROTHERS INC 0.13% | Sandisk Corp. 0.32% |
| CARLISLE COMPANIES INC 0.12% | Western Digital Corp. 0.31% |
| ARAMARK 0.12% | Ciena Corp. 0.30% |
| DICKS SPORTING GOODS INC 0.11% | Centene Corp. 0.29% |
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 WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund | RSP Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | WisdomTree | Invesco |
| What it is | U.S. Quality Dividend Growth | S&P 500 equal weight |
| Total return, 1 year | +12.4% | +14.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −5.1 pts | −2.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.28% | 0.20% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 96.7% | 99.1% |
| Holdings | 197 | 503 |
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%.
RSP in plain words
RSP is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 equal weight. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 503 positions, with the top ten at 3.2%. It sat 3.5% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, DGRW or RSP?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DGRW returned +12.4% and RSP returned +14.8%, so RSP returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, DGRW or RSP?
- DGRW charges 0.28% a year and RSP charges 0.20%, so RSP is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do DGRW and RSP overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 97% of DGRW and 99% of RSP by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 20% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, DGRW against RSP, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DGRW-RSP Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources