← All comparisons

Computed head-to-head · 6 dimensions

DGRW vs VOO

WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund versus SS S&P 500 INDEX X — yield, safety, growth trend, cost, scale, and tax treatment.

DGRW wins 3–1 on our six-dimension comparison, but VOO can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.

Scorecard at a glance

DimensionDGRWVOOWinner
Yield1.34%1.07%DGRW wins
Dividend safety6.9/106.5/10DGRW wins
Growth trendTie
Volatility (beta)0.871.00DGRW wins
Scale$16.2B$1.7TVOO wins
Tax efficiencyQualified-eligibleQualified-eligibleTie
Overall3 wins1 winsDGRW wins

Dimension by dimension

DGRW wins on yield (1.34% vs 1.07%)

On a $10,000 investment that's about $27 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 VOO's 1.07% — especially if the higher yield is driven by covered calls or a falling share price.

DGRW: 1.34%VOO: 1.07%

DGRW wins on safety (6.9/10 vs 6.5/10)

Our score combines yield zone, payout ratio, trend vs 5-year average, instrument type, and size. DGRW scores better on the weighted average of those factors.

DGRW: 6.9/10VOO: 6.5/10

Yield-trend comparison unavailable

One or both tickers are missing 5-year average yield data.

DGRW: VOO:

DGRW is less volatile (beta 0.87 vs 1.00)

Lower beta means smaller swings vs the S&P 500 — generally a steadier hold for income investors.

On $10,000 invested, VOO's lower expense ratio saves roughly $25/year in fees versus DGRW. Over 20 years that compounds to a meaningful drag — expense ratios are one of the few costs investors fully control.

DGRW: 0.87VOO: 1.00

VOO is 102.9× larger by market cap

Larger companies tend to have tighter spreads, deeper liquidity, and lower closure risk.

DGRW: $16.2BVOO: $1.7T

Both pay qualified-dividend-eligible distributions

Neither is structurally flagged for ordinary-income tax treatment. Most distributions should qualify for the lower long-term capital gains rate if holding-period requirements are met.

DGRW: Qualified-eligibleVOO: Qualified-eligible

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 VOO?

DGRW wins 3–1 on our six-dimension comparison, but VOO can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.

DGRW vs VOO: which has a higher dividend yield?

DGRW yields 1.34% and VOO yields 1.07%. On a $10,000 investment that's about $27 more in annual dividend income before taxes — though higher yield often comes with higher risk.

Is DGRW or VOO a safer dividend in 2026?

DGRW scores 6.9/10 (Solid) on the Infnits dividend safety scale. VOO scores 6.5/10 (Solid). DGRW is the safer pick on our scoring model.

Which has better dividend growth, DGRW or VOO?

One or both tickers are missing 5-year average yield data.

DGRW vs VOO: which is more tax-efficient?

Neither is structurally flagged for ordinary-income tax treatment. Most distributions should qualify for the lower long-term capital gains rate if holding-period requirements are met.

Already own DGRW or VOO? 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 →