AMLP vs DGRW: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
AMLP and DGRW are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. AMLP is Alerian MLP ETF, while DGRW is WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund. DGRW is broader by holdings count, with 199 positions versus 15 for AMLP. AMLP is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has DGRW ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 56.
What is the main difference between AMLP and DGRW?
AMLP puts 98% of its assets in Energy, while DGRW spreads across 10 sectors with none above 35%.
| Metric | AMLP | DGRW |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.01% | 0.28% |
| Holdings | 15 | 199 |
| Top-10 concentration | 92.2% | 38.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 7.74% | 1.19% |
| Average volume | 1,276,116 | 516,101 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.7% | +12.9% |
| YTD return | +11.9% | +11.1% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +16.5% | +11.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13.2% | 10.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -8.5% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -20.9% | -17.3% |
| Beta | -0.15 | 0.76 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.85 | 0.79 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.31 | 1.20 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 61/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 47/100 | 78/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 58/100 | 84/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Alerian MLP ETF vs WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund
DGRW leads
DGRW leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support DGRW, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Alerian MLP ETF
WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DGRW over AMLP, 61 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. DGRW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while AMLP holds the stronger value profile. DGRW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DGRW today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. DGRW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Alerian MLP ETF and WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
AMLP vs DGRW: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | AMLP | DGRW | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.01% | 0.28% | DGRW |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 15 | 199 | DGRW |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 92.2% | 38.5% | DGRW |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 7.74% | 1.19% | AMLP |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -20.9% | -17.3% | DGRW |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13.2% | 10.4% | DGRW |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare AMLP and DGRW against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum47 vs 78DGRW +31
- Risk Resilience58 vs 84DGRW +26
- Value61 vs 41AMLP +20
- Quality59 vs 57Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor DGRW. DGRW’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; AMLP keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +22
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
DGRW's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMLP and DGRW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DGRW (WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
AMLP (Alerian MLP ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 14% against 7.6%.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | AMLP | DGRW | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.01% | 0.28% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 15 | 199 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,276,116 | 516,101 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13.2% | 10.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -8.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.85 | 0.79 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.15 | 0.76 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
AMLP and DGRW share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
14 holdings are unique to AMLP, and 196 holdings are unique to DGRW. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
AMLP is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 92.21% of the fund, against 38.54% for DGRW (15 holdings vs 199). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
What AMLP adds that DGRW doesn’t
| Holding | AMLP | DGRW |
|---|---|---|
| SUNSunoco LP | 13.14% | Not held |
| PAAPlains All American Pipeline LP | 12.75% | Not held |
| ETEnergy Transfer LP | 12.6% | Not held |
| WESWestern Midstream Partners LP | 12.26% | Not held |
| MPLXMPLX LP | 11.62% | Not held |
| EPDEnterprise Products Partners LP | 11.44% | Not held |
What DGRW adds that AMLP doesn’t
| Holding | DGRW | AMLP |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.36% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 7.43% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 4.37% | Not held |
| METAMeta PlatformsInc. Cl A | 3.49% | Not held |
| KOCoca-Cola Co/The | 3.06% | Not held |
| UNHUnitedHealth Group Inc | 2.6% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
AMLP vs DGRW: five-year payout growth
AMLP grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 4.46% a year against DGRW's 4.12%. AMLP: The 2020 payout was 18.5% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. DGRW: A single payment in an endpoint year was 3.3x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result.
| Dividend metric | AMLP | DGRW |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 4.46% | 4.12% |
| 2020 annual payout | $3.160 | $1.043 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.930 | $1.276 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #104 of 138 | #19 of 33 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DGRW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DGRW | 56 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | AMLP | Value 61 vs 41 |
| Technicals | DGRW | Price vs 50-day -2.8% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day -0.1% vs 4.8% |
| Risk Resilience | DGRW | Risk Resilience 58 vs 84 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMLP and DGRW and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on DGRW.
How the comparison changed
95 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20DGRW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DGRW +5
- 56 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- DGRW +6
- 53 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- DGRW +2
- 51 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- AMLP +3
- 61 vs 58
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 25 when DGRW moved ahead of AMLP.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only DGRW
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bullish Crossover.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.1%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.11%, AIQ +5 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1AMLP closes the Momentum gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to DGRW's edge.
- 2AMLP's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3DGRW's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
DGRW leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AMLP | DGRW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.2% | 0% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2% | 0.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4% | 3.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.2% | 6.4% |
| Year to date | 11.9% | 11.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.7% | 12.9% |
Technicals
DGRW has the stronger structure| Metric | AMLP | DGRW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.1 | 68.8 |
| ADX (14) | 39.2 | 9.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.8% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.1% | 4.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14% | 7.6% |
Risk
DGRW is the more resilient| Metric | AMLP | DGRW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.15 | 0.76 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.85 | 0.79 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.31 | 1.2 |
| Max drawdown | -8.1% | -8.5% |
| Current drawdown | -6.4% | -0.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 13.2% | 10.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.3% | -1.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between AMLP and DGRW?
AMLP puts 98% of its assets in Energy, while DGRW spreads across 10 sectors with none above 35%.
How much do AMLP and DGRW overlap?
AMLP and DGRW share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 14 holdings are unique to AMLP, and 196 holdings are unique to DGRW. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, AMLP or DGRW?
DGRW holds more positions: 199 versus 15 for AMLP.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
DGRW has the lower expense ratio, 0.28% a year against 1.01% for AMLP.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
AMLP, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 7.74% against 1.19% for DGRW.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
AMLP has been more volatile over the past year, at 13.2% annualized against 10.4% for DGRW.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
DGRW fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -17.3% against -20.9% for AMLP.
Compare AMLP and DGRW with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.