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 VTV: how they differ

DGRW and VTV hold 35% of their weight in the same names, and VTV returned more over the year.

WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund and Vanguard Value Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DGRW and VTV hold 35% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DGRW and VTV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDGRWVTV
JOHNSON & JOHNSON2.34%2.30%
CATERPILLAR INC1.80%1.84%
ABBVIE INC2.07%1.67%
EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP1.59%2.13%
CISCO SYSTEMS INC1.44%1.57%
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC2.92%1.42%
HOME DEPOT INC (THE)2.81%1.32%
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY (THE)1.40%1.28%
MERCK & COMPANY INC1.18%1.19%
CHEVRON CORP1.38%1.18%
COCA-COLA COMPANY (THE)2.88%1.05%
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP1.59%0.99%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DGRWOnly in VTV
NVIDIA CORP 7.95%Micron Technology Inc 4.89%
MICROSOFT CORP 5.75%JPMorgan Chase & Co 3.07%
APPLE INC 3.87%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 2.96%
META PLATFORMS INC 2.97%Goldman Sachs Group Inc/The 1.07%
BROADCOM INC 2.34%Philip Morris International Inc 1.06%
ORACLE CORP 2.34%Intel Corp 1.05%
ALPHABET INC 2.32%RTX Corp 0.96%
ALPHABET INC 2.31%Wells Fargo & Co 0.95%

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 VTV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DGRW
WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund
VTV
Vanguard Value Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerWisdomTreeVanguard
What it isU.S. Quality Dividend GrowthUS value
Total return, 1 year+12.4%+22.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−5.1 pts+5.4 pts
Expense ratio0.28%0.03%
Already in the S&P 50096.7%98.6%
Holdings197308

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%.

VTV in plain words

VTV is an index equity fund tracking the US value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.9% 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, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 308 positions, with the top ten at 23.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DGRW or VTV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DGRW returned +12.4% and VTV returned +22.9%, so VTV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DGRW or VTV?
DGRW charges 0.28% a year and VTV charges 0.03%, so VTV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DGRW and VTV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 97% of DGRW and 99% of VTV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 35% 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 VTV, 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 VTV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DGRW-VTV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources