DGRO vs FDVV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
DGRO and FDVV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. DGRO is iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF, while FDVV is Fidelity High Dividend ETF. DGRO is broader by holdings count, with 395 positions versus 108 for FDVV. FDVV is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has DGRO ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 61.
What is the main difference between DGRO and FDVV?
DGRO holds 395 positions to FDVV's 108, and 35% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | DGRO | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 395 | 108 |
| Top-10 concentration | 27.6% | 35.4% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.88% | 2.77% |
| Average volume | 1,422,259 | 735,751 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +17.4% | +11.9% |
| YTD return | +14.2% | +9.1% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +10.9% | +13.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 10.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.9% | -10% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -19.3% | -20.2% |
| Beta | 0.45 | 0.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.26 | 0.69 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.11 | 1.07 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 63/100 | 61/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 80/100 | 61/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 78/100 | 81/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF vs Fidelity High Dividend ETF
DGRO leads
DGRO leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from FDVV.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support DGRO, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
Fidelity High Dividend ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DGRO over FDVV, 63 versus 61 as of Oct 21, 2026. DGRO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while FDVV holds the stronger value profile. DGRO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DGRO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. DGRO lead: Reversed — FDVV led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DGRO now leads by 2.
Compare iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF and Fidelity High Dividend ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
DGRO vs FDVV: 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 | DGRO | FDVV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.15% | DGRO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 395 | 108 | DGRO |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 27.6% | 35.4% | DGRO |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.88% | 2.77% | FDVV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -19.3% | -20.2% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 9.6% | 10.9% | DGRO |
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 DGRO and FDVV 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.
- Momentum80 vs 61DGRO +19
- Value42 vs 55FDVV +13
- Quality63 vs 57DGRO +6
- Risk Resilience78 vs 81Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor DGRO. DGRO’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; FDVV 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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 9 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
DGRO's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DGRO and FDVV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DGRO (iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
FDVV (Fidelity High Dividend ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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 | DGRO | FDVV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 395 | 108 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,422,259 | 735,751 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 10.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.9% | -10% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.26 | 0.69 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.45 | 0.67 | 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
DGRO and FDVV share 35.04% of their weighted exposure across 38 common holdings.
352 holdings are unique to DGRO, and 56 holdings are unique to FDVV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
FDVV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 35.43% of the fund, against 27.58% for DGRO (108 holdings vs 395). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | DGRO | FDVV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 3.44% | 5.18% | 3.44% |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 2.93% | 6.54% | 2.93% |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE & CO | 3.2% | 2.77% | 2.77% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.4% | 2.88% | 2.4% |
| KOCOCA COLA CO | 1.97% | 1.97% | 1.97% |
| BACBANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION | 1.86% | 1.99% | 1.86% |
| PMPHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL INC | 2.08% | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| PGPROCTER & GAMBLE | 2.15% | 1.67% | 1.67% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What DGRO adds that FDVV doesn’t
| Holding | DGRO | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 3.2% | 0.54% |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 3.04% | Not held |
| ABBVABBVIE | 2.96% | 0.46% |
| MRKMERCK & CO INC | 2.17% | 0.43% |
| UNHUNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC | 1.67% | 0.47% |
| AMGNAMGEN INC | 1.32% | Not held |
What FDVV adds that DGRO doesn’t
| Holding | FDVV | DGRO |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 7.15% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 6.54% | 2.93% |
| DELLDELL TECHNOLOGIES INC CL C | 3.33% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET INC CL A | 1.82% | Not held |
| BBYBEST BUY CO INC | 1.68% | Not held |
| BMPS.MIBANCA MONTE DEI PASCH SIEN SPA | 1.53% | 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.
DGRO vs FDVV: five-year payout growth
FDVV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.80% a year against DGRO's 7.09%. DGRO never reduced its annual distribution in the window; FDVV did in 1 year. FDVV: The 2020 payout was 19.7% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | DGRO | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 7.09% | 9.80% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.030 | $1.025 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.451 | $1.636 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #11 of 33 | #6 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
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DGRO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 63 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | FDVV | Value 42 vs 55 |
| Technicals | DGRO | Price vs 50-day 1.6% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day 6% vs 3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 78 vs 81 |
| 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 DGRO and FDVV and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
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 DGRO.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20DGRO lead: Reversed — FDVV led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DGRO now leads by 2.
- Today
- DGRO +2
- 63 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- DGRO +5
- 63 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- FDVV +3
- 52 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when DGRO moved ahead of FDVV.
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.
6 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only DGRO
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.5%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bullish Crossover.
DGRO leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
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 +0.14%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.21%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1FDVV closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to DGRO's edge.
- 2FDVV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3DGRO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
DGRO leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DGRO | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | -0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3% | -0.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.7% | -1.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.9% | 5.6% |
| Year to date | 14.2% | 9.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 17.4% | 11.9% |
Technicals
DGRO has the stronger structure| Metric | DGRO | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 83.7 | 64.8 |
| ADX (14) | 30.1 | 16.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.6% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6% | 3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 8.7% | 9.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | DGRO | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.45 | 0.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.26 | 0.69 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.11 | 1.07 |
| Max drawdown | -6.9% | -10% |
| Current drawdown | -1% | -3.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 10.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1% | -1.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between DGRO and FDVV?
DGRO holds 395 positions to FDVV's 108, and 35% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do DGRO and FDVV overlap?
DGRO and FDVV share 35.04% of their weighted exposure across 38 common holdings. 352 holdings are unique to DGRO, and 56 holdings are unique to FDVV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, DGRO or FDVV?
DGRO holds more positions: 395 versus 108 for FDVV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
DGRO has the lower expense ratio, 0.08% a year against 0.15% for FDVV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
FDVV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.77% against 1.88% for DGRO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
FDVV has been more volatile over the past year, at 10.9% annualized against 9.6% for DGRO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -19.3% for DGRO and -20.2% for FDVV.
Compare DGRO and FDVV 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.