Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
DGRW vs XLK: how they differ
DGRW and XLK hold 32% of their weight in the same names, and XLK returned more over the year.
WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund and State Street(R) Technology Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, DGRW and XLK hold 32% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | DGRW | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA CORP | 7.95% | 14.66% |
| MICROSOFT CORP | 5.75% | 8.38% |
| APPLE INC | 3.87% | 12.86% |
| BROADCOM INC | 2.34% | 5.41% |
| APPLIED MATERIALS INC | 1.71% | 3.20% |
| INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP | 1.59% | 1.47% |
| CISCO SYSTEMS INC | 1.44% | 2.59% |
| ORACLE CORP | 2.34% | 1.39% |
| CORNING INC | 1.23% | 1.11% |
| ANALOG DEVICES INC | 0.98% | 1.08% |
| TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC | 0.98% | 1.51% |
| LAM RESEARCH CORP | 0.90% | 3.02% |
| Only in DGRW | Only in XLK |
|---|---|
| META PLATFORMS INC 2.97% | Micron Technology Inc 5.42% |
| UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 2.92% | Advanced Micro Devices Inc 5.28% |
| COCA-COLA COMPANY (THE) 2.88% | Intel Corp 3.68% |
| HOME DEPOT INC (THE) 2.81% | Sandisk Corp 1.88% |
| JOHNSON & JOHNSON 2.34% | Palo Alto Networks Inc 1.54% |
| ALPHABET INC 2.32% | Palantir Technologies Inc 1.49% |
| ALPHABET INC 2.31% | Marvell Technology Inc 1.45% |
| ABBVIE INC 2.07% | Western Digital Corp 1.23% |
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 WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund | XLK State Street(R) Technology Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | WisdomTree | State Street |
| What it is | U.S. Quality Dividend Growth | Technology |
| Total return, 1 year | +12.4% | +39.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −5.1 pts | +21.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.28% | 0.08% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 96.7% | 100.0% |
| Holdings | 197 | 74 |
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%.
XLK in plain words
XLK is an index equity fund tracking the Technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +39.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 74 positions, with the top ten at 64.5%. It sat 5.2% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, DGRW or XLK?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DGRW returned +12.4% and XLK returned +39.2%, so XLK returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, DGRW or XLK?
- DGRW charges 0.28% a year and XLK charges 0.08%, so XLK is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do DGRW and XLK overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 97% of DGRW and 100% of XLK by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 32% 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 XLK, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DGRW-XLK Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources