DGS vs DIVB: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
DGS and DIVB are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. DGS is WisdomTree Emerging Markets SmallCap Dividend Fund, while DIVB is iShares Core Dividend ETF. DGS is broader by holdings count, with 1,029 positions versus 384 for DIVB. DIVB is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has DIVB ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 54.
What is the main difference between DGS and DIVB?
DGS and DIVB have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | DGS | DIVB |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.58% | 0.05% |
| Holdings | 1,029 | 384 |
| Top-10 concentration | 10.3% | 31.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 3.8% | 2.13% |
| Average volume | 39,614 | 256,272 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +9.7% | +35.7% |
| YTD return | +9.3% | +30% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +7.7% | +13.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 17.9% | 13% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10.4% | -7.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -24.6% | -21.1% |
| Beta | 1.08 | 0.46 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.42 | 2.08 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.62 | 3.41 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 54/100 | 62/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 38/100 | 80/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 80/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
WisdomTree Emerging Markets SmallCap Dividend Fund vs iShares Core Dividend ETF
DIVB leads
DIVB leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from DGS.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support DIVB, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
WisdomTree Emerging Markets SmallCap Dividend Fund
iShares Core Dividend ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DIVB over DGS, 62 versus 54 as of Oct 21, 2026. DIVB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while DGS holds the stronger value profile. DIVB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DIVB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. DIVB lead: Reversed — DGS led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DIVB now leads by 8.
Compare WisdomTree Emerging Markets SmallCap Dividend Fund and iShares Core Dividend ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
DGS vs DIVB: 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 | DGS | DIVB | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.58% | 0.05% | DIVB |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,029 | 384 | DGS |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 10.3% | 31.5% | DGS |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 3.8% | 2.13% | DGS |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -24.6% | -21.1% | DIVB |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 17.9% | 13% | DIVB |
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 DGS and DIVB 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.
- Momentum38 vs 80DIVB +42
- Value66 vs 53DGS +13
- Quality41 vs 48DIVB +7
- Risk Resilience80 vs 80Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor DIVB. DIVB’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; DGS 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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
DIVB's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DGS and DIVB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DIVB (iShares Core Dividend ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
DGS (WisdomTree Emerging Markets SmallCap Dividend Fund): 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 | DGS | DIVB | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.58% | 0.05% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,029 | 384 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 39,614 | 256,272 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 17.9% | 13% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10.4% | -7.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.42 | 2.08 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.08 | 0.46 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
How much of the same holdings they own
DGS and DIVB share 0.04% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings.
1,003 holdings are unique to DGS, and 380 holdings are unique to DIVB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
DIVB is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 31.53% of the fund, against 10.28% for DGS (384 holdings vs 1,029). 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 | DGS | DIVB | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| SUISun International Ltd/South Af | 0.1% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What DGS adds that DIVB doesn’t
| Holding | DGS | DIVB |
|---|---|---|
| 3481.TWInnoLux Corp | 2.33% | Not held |
| GRT.JOGrowthpoint Properties Ltd | 1.15% | Not held |
| BBAJIOO.MXBanco Del Bajio Sa | 1.01% | Not held |
| OMU.JOOld Mutual Ltd | 0.99% | Not held |
| 6239.TWPowertech Technology Inc | 0.96% | Not held |
| 2313.TWCompeq Manufacturing Co | 0.94% | Not held |
What DIVB adds that DGS doesn’t
| Holding | DIVB | DGS |
|---|---|---|
| ADPAUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING INC | 5.45% | Not held |
| 0Y0Y.LACCENTURE PLC CLASS A | 4.98% | Not held |
| IBMINTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES | 3.88% | Not held |
| HPQHP INC | 2.98% | Not held |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE & CO | 2.68% | Not held |
| CTSHCOGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CLA | 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.
DGS vs DIVB: five-year payout growth
DIVB grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 13.96% a year against DGS's 2.31%. DIVB: The payout jumped 72.2% in 2023, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | DGS | DIVB |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 2.31% | 13.96% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.761 | $0.691 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.974 | $1.328 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #27 of 33 | #1 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
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DIVB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DIVB | 54 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | DGS | Value 66 vs 53 |
| Technicals | DIVB | Price vs 50-day -1.7% vs 3.4%; vs 200-day -0.7% vs 15% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 80 vs 80 |
| 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 DGS and DIVB 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 moderate at 8 points.
- Only 2 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 lead has swung materially session to session. (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 DIVB.
How the comparison changed
95 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20DIVB lead: Reversed — DGS led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DIVB now leads by 8.
- Today
- DIVB +8
- 54 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- DIVB +9
- 54 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- DGS +4
- 54 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- DIVB +5
- 54 vs 59
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when DIVB moved ahead of DGS.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only DGS
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only DIVB
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 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 (0.2%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
DIVB 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 +0.1%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.13%, 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.
- 1DGS closes the Momentum gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to DIVB's edge.
- 2DGS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3DIVB'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
DIVB leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DGS | DIVB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.1% | 4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.6% | 5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.1% | 9.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2% | 23.8% |
| Year to date | 9.3% | 30% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 9.7% | 35.7% |
Technicals
DIVB has the stronger structure| Metric | DGS | DIVB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.6 | 84.7 |
| ADX (14) | 15.2 | 26.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.7% | 3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.7% | 15% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.2% | 13.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | DGS | DIVB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.08 | 0.46 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.42 | 2.08 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.62 | 3.41 |
| Max drawdown | -10.4% | -7.4% |
| Current drawdown | -6.1% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.9% | 13% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between DGS and DIVB?
DGS and DIVB have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do DGS and DIVB overlap?
DGS and DIVB share 0.04% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings. 1,003 holdings are unique to DGS, and 380 holdings are unique to DIVB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, DGS or DIVB?
DGS holds more positions: 1,029 versus 384 for DIVB.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
DIVB has the lower expense ratio, 0.05% a year against 0.58% for DGS.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
DGS, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 3.8% against 2.13% for DIVB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
DGS has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.9% annualized against 13% for DIVB.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
DIVB fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -21.1% against -24.6% for DGS.
Compare DGS and DIVB 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.