DGRO vs XLK: Complete Comparison
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF vs Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund โ overlap, correlation, performance & risk analysis
Visual Overlap
Price Performance
Historical price comparison over 3M
๐Performance Comparison
โ ๏ธRisk Metrics
Interpretation:
- ๐ Lower volatility = smoother ride
- โก Higher Sharpe/Sortino = better risk-adjusted returns
- โ ๏ธ Smaller max drawdown = less worst-case pain
- ๐ Beta > 1 = more volatile than S&P 500
โ๏ธHead-to-Head Comparison
Key Factors
โถAdditional Metrics (5)
Bottom line: DGRO and XLK are very similar. Choose based on your broker's commission structure or personal preference.
Detailed Overlap Analysis
25 shared holdings representing 18.8% portfolio overlap
Top Shared Holdings
| # | Stock | DGRO Weight | XLK Weight | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AAPL AAPL | 3.33% | 13.10% | 3.33% |
| 2 | AVGO AVGO | 2.87% | 5.36% | 2.87% |
| 3 | MSFT MSFT | 2.85% | 11.75% | 2.85% |
| 4 | CSCO CSCO | 1.74% | 2.60% | 1.74% |
| 5 | IBM IBM | 1.72% | 2.41% | 1.72% |
| 6 | QCOM QCOM | 0.95% | 1.58% | 0.95% |
| 7 | ACN ACN | 0.87% | 1.42% | 0.87% |
| 8 | ORCL ORCL | 0.68% | 2.81% | 0.68% |
| 9 | AMAT AMAT | 0.55% | 1.76% | 0.55% |
| 10 | ADI ADI | 0.50% | 1.15% | 0.50% |
Overlap by Sector
Showing top 5 sectors by overlap contribution
Top Holdings Only in DGRO
Unique to DGRO
| Symbol | Name | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| JNJ | JNJ | 3.22% |
| JPM | JPM | 3.07% |
| XOM | XOM | 3.02% |
| ABBV | ABBV | 2.80% |
| MRK | MRK | 2.11% |
Top Holdings Only in XLK
Unique to XLK
| Symbol | Name | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| NVDA | NVDA | 14.84% |
| PLTR | PLTR | 3.75% |
| AMD | AMD | 2.96% |
| MU | MU | 2.72% |
| CRM | CRM | 2.13% |
Price Correlation
How We Calculate Overlap
We use the minimum weight method with normalization to calculate portfolio overlap:
Overlap = ฮฃ min(weightA, weightB) for each shared holdingNormalization: Holdings weights are normalized to sum to 100% before comparison. This ensures accurate overlap calculations even when analyzing partial holdings data (e.g., top 50 positions).
Conservative approach: We consider only the smaller allocation for each shared position, giving you a realistic view of true portfolio overlap.
๐ This analysis is based on publicly available holdings data. For the most current and complete holdings information, please visit the official ETF provider websites.