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 IWF: how they differ

DGRO and IWF hold 20% of their weight in the same names, and DGRO returned more over the year.

iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DGRO and IWF hold 20% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DGRO and IWF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDGROIWF
MICROSOFT3.45%5.55%
APPLE3.04%7.77%
BROADCOM INC2.38%5.10%
ELI LILLY1.17%2.72%
VISA CLASS A1.11%1.84%
MASTERCARD CLASS A0.71%1.39%
HOME DEPOT1.98%0.69%
CATERPILLAR INC0.53%1.11%
ORACLE0.53%0.80%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP0.52%0.53%
AMGEN INC1.30%0.44%
APPLIED MATERIAL INC0.34%1.09%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DGROOnly in IWF
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 3.20%NVIDIA 15.46%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 3.20%ALPHABET CLASS A 5.88%
EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP 3.07%ALPHABET CLASS C 4.77%
PROCTER & GAMBLE 2.16%META PLATFORMS CLASS A 3.52%
MERCK & CO INC 2.14%MICRON TECHNOLOGY 3.35%
PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL INC 2.13%TESLA INC 3.22%
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 1.66%ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES 2.49%
WELLS FARGO 1.32%PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES CLASS A 1.12%

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 IWF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DGRO
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isCore Dividend GrowthRussell 1000 growth
Total return, 1 year+17.4%+7.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.1 pts−10.5 pts
Expense ratio0.08%0.18%
Already in the S&P 50094.7%93.6%
Holdings387315

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%.

IWF in plain words

IWF is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 315 positions, with the top ten at 57.3%. It sat 5.0% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DGRO or IWF?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DGRO returned +17.4% and IWF returned +7.0%, so DGRO returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DGRO or IWF?
DGRO charges 0.08% a year and IWF charges 0.18%, so DGRO is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DGRO and IWF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of DGRO and 94% of IWF 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources