DGRW vs XYLD: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
DGRW and XYLD are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. DGRW is WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund, while XYLD is Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF. XYLD is broader by holdings count, with 507 positions versus 199 for DGRW. DGRW has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has DGRW ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 48.
| Metric | DGRW | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.28% | 0.6% |
| Holdings | 199 | 507 |
| Top-10 concentration | 38.5% | 38% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.19% | 10.24% |
| Average volume | 516,101 | 625,833 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +12.9% | +4.9% |
| YTD return | +11.1% | +1.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.8% | +7.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 10.4% | 7.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.5% | -6.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -17.3% | -18.7% |
| Beta | 0.76 | 0.47 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.79 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.20 | 0.06 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 61/100 | 48/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 78/100 | 44/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 74/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund vs Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF
DGRW leads
DGRW leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from XYLD.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support DGRW, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund
Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DGRW over XYLD, 61 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. DGRW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. DGRW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DGRW today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. DGRW lead: Reversed — XYLD led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DGRW now leads by 13. DGRW leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund and Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
DGRW vs XYLD: 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 | DGRW | XYLD | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.28% | 0.6% | DGRW |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 199 | 507 | XYLD |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 38.5% | 38% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.19% | 10.24% | XYLD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -17.3% | -18.7% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 10.4% | 7.5% | XYLD |
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 DGRW and XYLD 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.
- Momentum78 vs 44DGRW +34
- Risk Resilience84 vs 74DGRW +10
- Value41 vs 35DGRW +6
- Quality57 vs 52DGRW +5
4 of 4 evidence groups favor DGRW. DGRW’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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 +22
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
DGRW's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DGRW and XYLD both carry a full feed there.
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 | DGRW | XYLD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.28% | 0.6% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 199 | 507 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 516,101 | 625,833 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 10.4% | 7.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.5% | -6.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.79 | 0.05 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.76 | 0.47 | 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
DGRW and XYLD share 50.97% of their weighted exposure across 141 common holdings.
55 holdings are unique to DGRW, and 363 holdings are unique to XYLD. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
DGRW is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 38.54% of the fund, against 38% for XYLD (199 holdings vs 507). 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 | DGRW | XYLD | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.36% | 7.97% | 7.97% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 7.43% | 5.55% | 5.55% |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 4.37% | 7.36% | 4.37% |
| GOOGALPHABET INC-CL C | 2.19% | 2.39% | 2.19% |
| GOOGLALPHABET INC-CL A | 2.18% | 2.99% | 2.18% |
| METAMeta PlatformsInc. Cl A | 3.49% | 2.15% | 2.15% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.07% | 2.58% | 2.07% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co | 1.43% | 1.33% | 1.33% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What DGRW adds that XYLD doesn’t
| Holding | DGRW | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| KOCoca-Cola Co/The | 3.06% | 0.51% |
| UNHUnitedHealth Group Inc | 2.6% | 0.52% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 2.42% | 0.96% |
| HDHome Depot Inc | 2.37% | 0.46% |
| ORCLOracle Corp | 2.25% | 0.39% |
| ABBVAbbVie Inc | 2.13% | 0.68% |
What XYLD adds that DGRW doesn’t
| Holding | XYLD | DGRW |
|---|---|---|
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 3.79% | Not held |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | 1.66% | Not held |
| TSLATESLA INC | 1.55% | Not held |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE & CO | 1.44% | Not held |
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC-CL B | 1.41% | Not held |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 1.27% | 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.
DGRW vs XYLD: five-year payout growth
DGRW grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 4.12% a year against XYLD's 3.02%. 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 | DGRW | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 4.12% | 3.02% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.043 | $3.681 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.276 | $4.271 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #19 of 33 | #2 of 3 |
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
4 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 | 61 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | DGRW | Value 41 vs 35 |
| Technicals | DGRW | Price vs 50-day 0.6% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day 4.8% vs 1.5% |
| Risk Resilience | DGRW | Risk Resilience 84 vs 74 |
| 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 DGRW and XYLD and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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
41 daily snapshots · Sep 8 – Oct 20DGRW lead: Reversed — XYLD led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DGRW now leads by 13.
- Today
- DGRW +13
- 61 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- DGRW +2
- 59 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- XYLD +1
- 53 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when DGRW moved ahead of XYLD.
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only DGRW
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only XYLD
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 52-Week High Proximity.
XYLD is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.11%, AIQ +5 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.34%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1XYLD closes the Momentum gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to DGRW's edge.
- 2XYLD generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 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 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DGRW | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.4% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.4% | 1.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.4% | 4.2% |
| Year to date | 11.1% | 1.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.9% | 4.9% |
Technicals
DGRW has the stronger structure| Metric | DGRW | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 68.8 | 45.2 |
| ADX (14) | 9.2 | 14.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.6% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.8% | 1.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 7.6% | 4.9% |
Risk
DGRW is the more resilient| Metric | DGRW | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.76 | 0.47 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.79 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.2 | 0.06 |
| Max drawdown | -8.5% | -6.6% |
| Current drawdown | -0.9% | -1.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 10.4% | 7.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -0.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
How much do DGRW and XYLD overlap?
DGRW and XYLD share 50.97% of their weighted exposure across 141 common holdings. 55 holdings are unique to DGRW, and 363 holdings are unique to XYLD. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, DGRW or XYLD?
XYLD holds more positions: 507 versus 199 for DGRW.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
DGRW has the lower expense ratio, 0.28% a year against 0.6% for XYLD.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
XYLD, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 10.24% against 1.19% for DGRW.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
DGRW has been more volatile over the past year, at 10.4% annualized against 7.5% for XYLD.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -17.3% for DGRW and -18.7% for XYLD.
Compare DGRW and XYLD 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.