Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
DGRW vs SPLG: how they differ
DGRW and SPLG are both equity index funds, and over the year SPLG returned more, +17.6% against +12.4%.
WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund and S&P 500, book from IVV.
| DGRW WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund | SPLG S&P 500, book from IVV | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | WisdomTree | S&P |
| What it is | U.S. Quality Dividend Growth | S&P 500, book from IVV |
| Total return, 1 year | +12.4% | +17.6% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −5.1 pts | +0.1 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.28% | not published |
| Holdings | 197 | not filed |
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%.
SPLG in plain words
SPLG is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, DGRW or SPLG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DGRW returned +12.4% and SPLG returned +17.6%, so SPLG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
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 SPLG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DGRW-SPLG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources