Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

DGRO vs DYNF: how they differ

DGRO and DYNF hold 37% of their weight in the same names, and DYNF returned more over the year.

iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF and iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DGRO and DYNF hold 37% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DGRO and DYNF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDGRODYNF
MICROSOFT3.45%4.75%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO3.20%3.46%
APPLE3.04%7.62%
EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP3.07%2.73%
BROADCOM INC2.38%2.59%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON3.20%2.03%
BANK OF AMERICA1.86%2.17%
CISCO SYSTEMS INC1.24%1.54%
ELI LILLY1.17%1.17%
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP1.12%1.17%
RTX0.94%1.08%
CITIGROUP0.92%1.19%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DGROOnly in DYNF
CONOCOPHILLIPS 1.02%NVIDIA 8.13%
BLACKROCK 0.74%AMAZON.COM INC 4.09%
SOUTHERN 0.71%META PLATFORMS CLASS A 2.42%
AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING INC 0.69%ALPHABET CLASS A 2.39%
PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP 0.64%ALPHABET CLASS C 1.98%
LINDE PLC 0.59%MICRON TECHNOLOGY 1.83%
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL INC CLASS A 0.57%SALESFORCE 1.62%
LOWES COMPANIES INC 0.55%TESLA INC 1.52%

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 Sep 10, 2026.

DGRO and DYNF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DGRO
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
DYNF
iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isCore Dividend GrowthU.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active
Total return, 1 year+17.4%+20.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.1 pts+3.3 pts
Expense ratio0.08%0.26%
Already in the S&P 50094.7%98.8%
Holdings387234

DGRO in plain words

DGRO is an index equity fund tracking the Core Dividend Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 387 positions, with the top ten at 27.8%.

DYNF in plain words

DYNF is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.26% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 234 positions, with the top ten at 40.3%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DGRO or DYNF?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DGRO returned +17.4% and DYNF returned +20.8%, so DYNF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DGRO or DYNF?
DGRO charges 0.08% a year and DYNF charges 0.26%, so DGRO is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DGRO and DYNF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of DGRO and 99% of DYNF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 37% 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.

DGRO against DYNF, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 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, DGRO against DYNF, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/dgro-vs-dynf Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources