Computed head-to-head · 6 dimensions
DGRW vs QQQI
WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund versus Neos NASDAQ-100 High Income ETF — yield, safety, growth trend, cost, scale, and tax treatment.
DGRW wins 3–0 on our six-dimension comparison, but QQQI can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
Scorecard at a glance
| Dimension | DGRW | QQQI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yield | 1.34% | 0.09% | DGRW wins |
| Dividend safety | 6.9/10 | 6.9/10 | Tie |
| Growth trend | — | — | Tie |
| Expense ratio | 28.00% | 68.00% | DGRW wins |
| Scale | $16.2B | $13.1B | Tie |
| Tax efficiency | Qualified-eligible | Ordinary income | DGRW wins |
| Overall | 3 wins | 0 wins | DGRW wins |
Dimension by dimension
DGRW wins on yield (1.34% vs 0.09%)
On a $10,000 investment that's about $125 more in annual dividend income before taxes — though higher yield often comes with higher risk.
DGRW's higher yield (1.34%) looks attractive but investors should weigh whether the extra income compensates for any additional risk versus QQQI's 0.09% — especially if the higher yield is driven by covered calls or a falling share price.
Safety scores are too close to call (6.9/10 vs 6.9/10)
Both score within 0.3 points on our 0-10 dividend safety scale — comparable risk profiles on the signals we measure.
Yield-trend comparison unavailable
One or both tickers are missing 5-year average yield data.
DGRW is cheaper (28.00% vs 68.00%)
On a $10,000 position the lower expense ratio saves about $4000/year — small annually but compounds significantly over 20+ years.
On $10,000 invested, DGRW's lower expense ratio saves roughly $40/year in fees versus QQQI. Over 20 years that compounds to a meaningful drag — expense ratios are one of the few costs investors fully control.
Comparable scale ($16.2B vs $13.1B)
Within 1.5x of each other on market cap / AUM — similar institutional footprint.
DGRW is more tax-efficient in a taxable account
QQQI's distributions are typically taxed as ordinary income (covered call ETF, REIT, or mREIT) — versus qualified dividends from DGRW which get the lower long-term capital gains rate.
How we compare these
Every comparison on this page is computed from current public data, not written by hand. Yield comes from the most recent dividend distribution annualized over current price. Safety scores combine yield zone, payout ratio, trend vs 5-year average, instrument type, and size — see our methodology for the exact formula. Tax-efficiency flags identify covered-call ETFs, REITs, and mREITs which distribute primarily as ordinary income.
This is educational, not investment advice.Scores reflect a snapshot of public data on the "as of" dates shown on each ticker's safety page. Verify on the issuer's investor relations page or your brokerage before making decisions.
Frequently asked
Which is better for income, DGRW or QQQI?
DGRW wins 3–0 on our six-dimension comparison, but QQQI can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
DGRW vs QQQI: which has a higher dividend yield?
DGRW yields 1.34% and QQQI yields 0.09%. On a $10,000 investment that's about $125 more in annual dividend income before taxes — though higher yield often comes with higher risk.
Is DGRW or QQQI a safer dividend in 2026?
DGRW scores 6.9/10 (Solid) on the Infnits dividend safety scale. QQQI scores 6.9/10 (Solid). Both have comparable safety scores.
Which has better dividend growth, DGRW or QQQI?
One or both tickers are missing 5-year average yield data.
DGRW vs QQQI: which is more tax-efficient?
QQQI's distributions are typically taxed as ordinary income (covered call ETF, REIT, or mREIT) — versus qualified dividends from DGRW which get the lower long-term capital gains rate.
Get emailed when DGRW vs QQQI data updates.
Already own DGRW or QQQI? See if the other adds anything.
Connect your brokerage and Infnits checks whether adding DGRW to your existing portfolio actually diversifies — or just duplicates exposure (ETF look-through included).
Check overlap with my portfolio →