DGRO vs SCHD: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
DGRO and SCHD are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. DGRO is iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF, while SCHD is Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF. DGRO is broader by holdings count, with 395 positions versus 102 for SCHD. SCHD is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SCHD ahead on AIQ Score, 68 versus 63.
What is the main difference between DGRO and SCHD?
DGRO holds 395 positions to SCHD's 102, and 21% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | DGRO | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | 395 | 102 |
| Top-10 concentration | 27.6% | 42% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.88% | 3.04% |
| Average volume | 1,422,259 | 22,407,196 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +17.4% | +29.4% |
| YTD return | +14.2% | +26.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +10.9% | +9.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 11.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.9% | -7.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -19.3% | -16.8% |
| Beta | 0.45 | 0.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.26 | 2.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.11 | 3.82 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 63/100 | 68/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 80/100 | 79/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 78/100 | 71/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF vs Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD leads
SCHD leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support SCHD, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SCHD over DGRO, 68 versus 63 as of Oct 21, 2026. SCHD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while DGRO holds the stronger risk resilience profile. SCHD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. SCHD lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF and Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
DGRO vs SCHD: 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 | SCHD | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.06% | SCHD |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 395 | 102 | DGRO |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 27.6% | 42% | DGRO |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.88% | 3.04% | SCHD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -19.3% | -16.8% | SCHD |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 9.6% | 11.3% | 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 SCHD 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.
- Quality63 vs 76SCHD +13
- Value42 vs 51SCHD +9
- Risk Resilience78 vs 71DGRO +7
- Momentum80 vs 79Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor SCHD. SCHD’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; DGRO keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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: Risk Resilience -1
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
SCHD's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DGRO and SCHD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SCHD (Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
DGRO (iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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 | SCHD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.06% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 395 | 102 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,422,259 | 22,407,196 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 11.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.9% | -7.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.26 | 2.02 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.45 | 0.22 | 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 SCHD share 20.54% of their weighted exposure across 32 common holdings.
358 holdings are unique to DGRO, and 67 holdings are unique to SCHD. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SCHD is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 42.01% of the fund, against 27.58% for DGRO (102 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 | SCHD | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRKMERCK & CO INC | 2.17% | 4.81% | 2.17% |
| PGPROCTER & GAMBLE | 2.15% | 3.89% | 2.15% |
| HDHOME DEPOT | 2% | 3.73% | 2% |
| KOCOCA-COLA | 1.97% | 4.25% | 1.97% |
| UNHUNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC | 1.67% | 3.93% | 1.67% |
| PEPPEPSICO | 1.63% | 3.66% | 1.63% |
| AMGNAMGEN INC | 1.32% | 4.31% | 1.32% |
| ABTABBOTT LABORATORIES | 1.1% | 4.52% | 1.1% |
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 SCHD doesn’t
| Holding | DGRO | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 3.44% | Not held |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 3.2% | Not held |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE & CO | 3.2% | Not held |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 3.04% | Not held |
| ABBVABBVIE | 2.96% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 2.93% | Not held |
What SCHD adds that DGRO doesn’t
| Holding | SCHD | DGRO |
|---|---|---|
| MRKMERCK & CO INC | 4.81% | 2.17% |
| ABTABBOTT LABORATORIES | 4.52% | 1.1% |
| AMGNAMGEN INC | 4.31% | 1.32% |
| CVXCHEVRON | 4.28% | Not held |
| KOCOCA-COLA | 4.25% | 1.97% |
| COPCONOCOPHILLIPS | 4.2% | 1.01% |
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 SCHD: five-year payout growth
SCHD grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.15% a year against DGRO's 7.09%. Neither fund reduced its annual distribution in any year of the window.
| Dividend metric | DGRO | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 7.09% | 9.15% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.030 | $0.676 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.451 | $1.048 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #11 of 33 | #8 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 SCHD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SCHD | 63 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SCHD | Value 42 vs 51 |
| Technicals | SCHD | Price vs 50-day 1.6% vs 1.9%; vs 200-day 6% vs 8.2% |
| Risk Resilience | DGRO | Risk Resilience 78 vs 71 |
| 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 SCHD 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 SCHD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SCHD lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SCHD +5
- 63 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- SCHD +5
- 63 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- SCHD +5
- 52 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- SCHD +6
- 60 vs 66
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jun 29 when DGRO moved ahead of SCHD.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SCHD
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 9 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 52-Week High Proximity, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
SCHD 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.09%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1DGRO closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to SCHD's edge.
- 2DGRO's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SCHD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 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
SCHD leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | DGRO | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | 4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3% | 2.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.7% | 5.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.9% | 12% |
| Year to date | 14.2% | 26.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 17.4% | 29.4% |
Technicals
SCHD has the stronger structure| Metric | DGRO | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 83.7 | 86 |
| ADX (14) | 30.1 | 30.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.6% | 1.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6% | 8.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 8.7% | 12.6% |
Risk
DGRO is the more resilient| Metric | DGRO | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.45 | 0.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.26 | 2.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.11 | 3.82 |
| Max drawdown | -6.9% | -7.6% |
| Current drawdown | -1% | -1.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 11.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -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 SCHD?
DGRO holds 395 positions to SCHD's 102, and 21% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do DGRO and SCHD overlap?
DGRO and SCHD share 20.54% of their weighted exposure across 32 common holdings. 358 holdings are unique to DGRO, and 67 holdings are unique to SCHD. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, DGRO or SCHD?
DGRO holds more positions: 395 versus 102 for SCHD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHD has the lower expense ratio, 0.06% a year against 0.08% for DGRO.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SCHD, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 3.04% against 1.88% for DGRO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SCHD has been more volatile over the past year, at 11.3% annualized against 9.6% for DGRO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SCHD fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -16.8% against -19.3% for DGRO.
Compare DGRO and SCHD 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.