DGRO vs DGRW: iShares Dividend Growth vs Quality Growth

Two iShares dividend growth ETFs with different methodologies: Morningstar-based vs fundamental quality-based approaches compared.

DGRO

DGRO

iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF

2.4%
Dividend Yield
0.08%
Expense Ratio
11.5%
5-Year Return
420
Holdings

DGRO tracks the Morningstar US Dividend Growth Index, focusing on companies with at least 5 consecutive years of dividend growth. Emphasizes payout ratio ≤ 75% and financial health. Part of iShares Core series, designed for long-term, low-cost dividend growth investing.

Morningstar Index 5+ Year History Payout Ratio Focus iShares Core Broad Diversification
DGRW

DGRW

iShares Quality Dividend Growth ETF

1.9%
Dividend Yield
0.22%
Expense Ratio
12.2%
5-Year Return
150
Holdings

DGRW tracks the WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Index, using fundamental factors like return on equity (ROE) and earnings growth. Focuses on companies with strong profitability and growth characteristics, not just dividend history. More concentrated, quality-focused approach.

Fundamental Quality ROE Focus Earnings Growth Concentrated WisdomTree Index

Key Metrics Comparison

Metric DGRO DGRW Winner
Dividend Yield 2.4% 1.9% DGRO (+0.5%)
Expense Ratio 0.08% 0.22% DGRO (-0.14%)
5-Year Annual Return 11.5% 12.2% DGRW (+0.7%)
Dividend Growth (5-Year) 9.8% 10.5% DGRW (+0.7%)
Number of Holdings 420 150 DGRO (More Diversified)
Minimum ROE Requirement None 10% Minimum DGRW (Quality Screen)
Beta vs S&P 500 0.82 0.85 DGRO (Slightly Lower Risk)
Maximum Drawdown (2020) -22% -24% DGRO (Better Protection)

Performance Comparison

DGRO Performance

Lower expense ratio (0.08% vs 0.22%) provides significant cost advantage over time. Better diversification with 420 holdings reduces single-stock risk. Lower yield but higher total return potential through growth. Better downside protection in bear markets.

11.5%
5-Year Return
2.4%
Yield
9.8%
Div Growth
0.08%
Expense Ratio

DGRW Performance

Higher total returns despite higher expense ratio. Superior dividend growth rate. Quality screens (ROE, earnings growth) lead to better performing companies. More concentrated portfolio = higher potential upside (and risk). Better for investors prioritizing quality over cost.

12.2%
5-Year Return
1.9%
Yield
10.5%
Div Growth
0.22%
Expense Ratio

Strategy Analysis

DGRO Methodology

Traditional dividend growth approach with quality screens:

  • Minimum 5 years dividend growth
  • Payout ratio ≤ 75% requirement
  • Morningstar quality assessment
  • Broad diversification (420 holdings)
  • No specific ROE requirement
  • Market-cap weighted
  • iShares Core low-cost structure
  • Tax-efficient design

DGRW Methodology

Fundamental quality-driven dividend growth:

  • ROE ≥ 10% requirement
  • Earnings growth screens
  • WisdomTree fundamental index
  • Concentrated portfolio (150 holdings)
  • Long-term earnings growth estimates
  • Quality factor weighting
  • Higher expense for active methodology
  • Growth-oriented quality focus

Methodology Comparison: Traditional vs Fundamental

The core difference: DGRO uses traditional dividend metrics (history, payout ratio) while DGRW uses fundamental quality metrics (ROE, earnings growth). This leads to different portfolio construction and performance characteristics.

Cost Difference

0.14%
DGRO Expense Advantage

Return Difference

+0.7%
DGRW Performance Advantage

Diversification

420 vs 150
DGRO vs DGRW Holdings

Quality Screen

10% ROE
DGRW Minimum Requirement

Fundamental vs Traditional Dividend Investing

DGRW's fundamental approach looks beyond dividend history to company quality and growth potential, while DGRO focuses on dividend sustainability and growth track record. This represents two valid but different approaches to dividend growth investing.

DGRO (Traditional)

Strengths: Proven track record, lower cost, better diversification, tax efficiency

Focus: What companies have done (dividend history)

Best for: Cost-conscious investors, risk-averse investors, large portfolios

Limitation: May miss quality companies without 5-year dividend history

DGRW (Fundamental)

Strengths: Higher returns, quality screens, growth orientation

Focus: What companies can do (fundamental quality)

Best for: Growth-oriented investors, those willing to pay for quality

Limitation: Higher cost, more concentrated, higher volatility

Performance Implications

Bull markets: DGRW outperforms (quality/growth focus)

Bear markets: DGRO holds up better (diversification)

Long-term: DGRW's quality premium may persist

Cost impact: DGRO's 0.14% advantage compounds over decades

Growth & Market Cycle Analysis

Growth & Quality Metrics

DGRW's fundamental screens lead to higher growth characteristics, while DGRO's broader approach provides more stability and lower volatility.

Dividend Growth

10.5% vs 9.8%
DGRW vs DGRO (5-Year)

Earnings Growth

14% vs 11%
DGRW vs DGRO Average

Return on Equity

22% vs 18%
DGRW vs DGRO Average

Price Volatility

15% vs 13%
DGRW vs DGRO (Annual)

Market Cycle Performance

DGRW excels during growth phases due to quality/growth focus, while DGRO provides better protection during market stress due to diversification.

Growth Cycles (DGRW Favored)

2017-2019: DGRW +18% vs DGRO +16%

Tech bull markets: DGRW's quality focus wins

Low inflation: Growth outperforms value

Economic expansion: Quality companies excel

Stress Cycles (DGRO Favored)

2020 Crash: DGRO -22% vs DGRW -24%

2018 Correction: DGRO -8% vs DGRW -10%

High volatility: Diversification matters

Recession fears: Broader holdings help

Allocation Strategy

Growth focus: 70% DGRW + 30% DGRO

Balanced: 50% DGRW + 50% DGRO

Conservative: 30% DGRW + 70% DGRO

Market timing: Shift based on cycle

Income Analysis

DGRO Income Profile

Higher current yield provides immediate income advantage. More diversified dividend stream from 420 companies. Consistent but slightly slower dividend growth. Better for investors needing current income and preferring stability.

Current Yield 2.4%
5-Year Dividend Growth 9.8%
10-Year Projected Yield ~6.0%
Dividend Consistency High

DGRW Income Profile

Lower current yield but faster dividend growth. Quality screens lead to companies with strong earnings to support dividend increases. More volatile dividend growth but higher long-term potential. Better for investors focused on growing income over time.

Current Yield 1.9%
5-Year Dividend Growth 10.5%
10-Year Projected Yield ~5.2%
Dividend Quality Very High

Sector Allocation Comparison

DGRO Sectors (Balanced & Diversified)

Information Technology 22.3%
Healthcare 18.5%
Financials 15.8%
Industrials 13.2%
Consumer Staples 10.5%

DGRW Sectors (Quality & Growth Focus)

Information Technology 28.5%
Healthcare 22.2%
Consumer Discretionary 18.8%
Industrials 15.5%
Financials 8.3%

Top Holdings Comparison

DGRO Top Holdings (Broad & Balanced)

Microsoft Corp. 4.2%
Apple Inc. 4.1%
Johnson & Johnson 3.8%
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 3.5%
UnitedHealth Group 3.2%

Note: More financials, balanced sector exposure

DGRW Top Holdings (Quality & Growth)

Microsoft Corp. 6.8%
Apple Inc. 6.5%
Visa Inc. 4.2%
Mastercard Inc. 3.9%
UnitedHealth Group 3.7%

Note: Higher tech concentration, quality names

Investment Recommendation

🏦 Choose DGRO If:

  • Lower costs are priority (0.08% vs 0.22%)
  • Better diversification matters (420 vs 150 holdings)
  • Higher current yield is needed (2.4% vs 1.9%)
  • You prefer traditional dividend metrics
  • Downside protection is important
  • You're building a large core position
  • Tax efficiency matters (iShares Core)
  • You're risk-averse or near retirement

⭐ Choose DGRW If:

  • Higher total returns matter (12.2% vs 11.5%)
  • Quality screens are important (ROE, earnings growth)
  • Faster dividend growth is priority (10.5% vs 9.8%)
  • You're willing to pay for quality (0.22% expense)
  • Growth orientation aligns with your goals
  • You believe in quality factor premium
  • You're in accumulation phase
  • Higher risk tolerance for higher potential returns

💡 Portfolio Construction Strategy

For optimal balance: Consider 60% DGRO + 40% DGRW. This provides core diversification with quality growth tilt. For cost-conscious investors: 80% DGRO + 20% DGRW maintains low costs with some quality exposure. For growth-focused investors: 40% DGRO + 60% DGRW emphasizes quality while maintaining some diversification. Important: The 0.14% expense difference matters - DGRW needs to outperform by 0.14% annually just to break even. Tax considerations: Both are iShares ETFs with good tax efficiency. Market cycle strategy: Overweight DGRW during growth phases, overweight DGRO during uncertainty. Final thought: Both are excellent ETFs - DGRO for cost-effective, diversified dividend growth, DGRW for quality-focused, growth-oriented dividend investing. Choose based on your cost sensitivity and growth priorities.

Back to All ETF compare

Which should you choose: DGRO vs DGRW?

DGRO
Choose DGRO if you want broad, low-cost exposure to companies with consistent dividend-growth histories, with a slightly lower yield than SCHD but more holdings.
DGRW
Choose DGRW if you want quality dividend growers and value DGRW's monthly distributions for smoother cash flow.
Bottom line: Both DGRO and DGRW are dividend-growth funds, so the decision comes down to the finer details — expense ratio, exact holdings, yield and dividend-growth rate. Compare the figures in the table above and pick the one whose costs and composition fit your plan.