DGRW(DGRW)
AI Look-Through Summary
AI GeneratedThe DGRW ETF demonstrates a pronounced tilt toward the technology sector, which accounts for nearly 28% of its total portfolio weight. This concentration is driven by significant exposure to major industry leaders such as Microsoft, Apple, and Nvidia, each holding over 5.7% of assets individually. The fund's top ten holdings reveal a heavy reliance on large-cap equities across technology, healthcare, communication services, energy, and consumer sectors. Notably, the inclusion of substantial positions in XOM and CVX within the energy category suggests an intentional diversification into traditional value stocks alongside high-growth tech names, while also maintaining exposure to defensive consumer staples like Coca-Cola through a 2.6% holding.
Geographically, the provided data does not explicitly detail regional allocations; however, the composition of top holdings implies a primary focus on U.S.-listed companies given the dominance of domestic giants in both technology and healthcare sectors. With assets under management exceeding $15 billion, the fund possesses significant scale, which often correlates with lower expense ratios and enhanced liquidity for institutional investors. The sector distribution shows a balanced approach beyond pure tech growth, incorporating 13.9% in healthcare and 11.9% in communication services to mitigate volatility associated with single-sector swings. Financial services round out the top sectors at 11.3%, indicating that while the fund leans heavily on mega-cap growth and value leaders, it retains a diversified footprint across major economic drivers without overextending into niche industries or emerging markets based on current disclosure.
Generated by Qwen-32B from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-21 03:32:47.476178+00
🔍 Theme Alignment Audit
AI GeneratedPurity: 25/100The investment theme implied by the ticker DGRW suggests a focus on growth, yet the actual holdings reveal a portfolio heavily anchored in mega-cap technology and established giants like Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, and Meta. While these companies are often considered high-growth leaders, their dominant presence alongside significant allocations to traditional sectors such as energy (ExxonMobil, Chevron) and consumer defensives (Coca-Cola) dilutes any specific growth narrative. The inclusion of broad-based financials and industrial holdings further indicates that the fund relies on large-cap stability rather than maintaining a tight thematic focus on pure-growth dynamics or emerging innovation.
Sector coherence appears inconsistent with a singular growth mandate, as the portfolio mirrors a diversified broad-market index more closely than a specialized theme vehicle. Technology remains the largest sector at nearly 28%, but substantial weights in healthcare, financial services, and energy create a wide dispersion that reduces differentiation from standard market benchmarks. With top-ten concentration hovering around 37% driven largely by tech titans, the fund exhibits moderate risk through name recognition rather than strategic thematic exposure. The presence of such varied sectors suggests an attempt to capture general large-cap performance across multiple industries, which may limit upside potential if a specific growth sector outperforms while failing to provide true diversification benefits relative to a total market index.
AI analysis of holdings alignment vs fund theme. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-23 00:48:12.898635+00
⚠️ Systemic Risk Synthesis
AI GeneratedThe newly disclosed risk factors across the top holdings of DGRW highlight three emerging systemic themes: regulatory compliance regarding climate change, escalating cybersecurity and data privacy costs, and potential constraints from artificial intelligence governance. These disclosures indicate that a significant portion of the fund's largest constituents are facing increasing operational headwinds as they navigate evolving legal frameworks designed to address environmental impact, protect digital assets, and govern advanced algorithmic technologies. The convergence of these risks suggests that macro-level regulatory tightening is becoming a material consideration for financial performance across diverse sectors represented in this portfolio.
Concentration analysis reveals a notable correlation risk stemming from the weightings assigned to specific disclosures. NVIDIA holds a 5.7% position within the fund and has explicitly flagged all three major categories—climate regulation, cybersecurity, and AI governance—as potential sources of material adverse impact. Because this single holding carries such high exposure across multiple regulatory fronts simultaneously, any tightening in these areas could disproportionately affect the overall portfolio value relative to smaller positions. The fact that other top holdings like Microsoft and Google also operate within these same regulatory spheres implies a broader industry-wide vulnerability where correlated downside events may occur if legislation becomes stricter than anticipated.
While several companies address general operational risks, NVIDIA's specific disclosure regarding AI regulation stands out due to its direct link to the company's core growth narrative and substantial fund weightage. This concentration means that policy shifts specifically targeting artificial intelligence development or deployment could have an outsized effect on the ETF compared to risks affecting lower-weighted utility or consumer staples names. The presence of these detailed regulatory warnings in a top-tier holding underscores the growing importance of compliance costs as a variable factor in future earnings projections for this specific investment vehicle.
Synthesized from constituent 10-K risk factor disclosures. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-23 17:52:21.803848+00
🏢 Sector Analysis
AI GeneratedThe sector allocation profile of DGRW reveals a distinct tilt toward growth-oriented industries, with Technology holding nearly 28% of the portfolio alongside significant exposures to Communication Services and Healthcare. This concentration in sectors historically associated with high volatility and rapid valuation expansion suggests an investment thesis centered on capturing upside potential from innovation leaders rather than seeking broad market stability or defensive income generation. The presence of substantial weightings in Financial Services, Consumer Cyclical, and Industrials further indicates a bias toward companies capable of scaling operations during economic upswings, while the minimal allocation to Utilities and Basic Materials underscores an intentional avoidance of slower-growth utility plays and cyclical commodity producers.
Top holdings such as Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, Exxon Mobil, and Meta collectively account for 37.3% of the fund's assets, highlighting a pronounced concentration risk that ties performance heavily to the fortunes of these specific mega-cap entities. The heavy reliance on three technology giants alone creates a vulnerability where adverse news or regulatory headwinds affecting this single sector could disproportionately impact overall portfolio returns despite the nominal diversification across ten sectors. Furthermore, the inclusion of energy and financial services in the top five suggests that while the fund seeks growth, it also maintains exposure to companies with strong balance sheets capable of weathering macroeconomic shifts, though the sheer dominance of tech names may dilute this intended defensive characteristic during a market correction driven by rate-sensitive or mega-cap specific factors.
Ultimately, the structural composition points toward a strategy designed for investors seeking aggressive capital appreciation through concentrated bets on dominant industry players rather than balanced wealth preservation. The interplay between high sector concentration in volatile growth areas and significant top-10 name exposure implies that returns will likely correlate strongly with broader technology market trends and the specific performance of its largest constituents, potentially amplifying both gains during bull markets and losses when those leaders face headwinds.
AI-generated sector analysis from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-21 18:43:51.125927+00
Flow Driver Analysis
2-Step CircleWhich larger ETFs share DGRW's holdings — and mechanically drive its price through index rebalancing flows?
Approximately 100% of DGRW's weight flows through these larger ETFs
| Driver ETF | AUM | Expense | Shared Stocks | Weight Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPTMSPTM | $12B | — | 191 | 98.4% |
| IVViShares Core S&P 500 ETF | $762B | 0.03% | 145 | 96.7% |
| RSPRSP | $83B | — | 145 | 96.7% |
| ITOTiShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF | $80B | — | 145 | 96.7% |
| SCHXSCHX | $61B | — | 145 | 96.7% |
98% of DGRW's portfolio by weight is also held by SPTM. When SPTM receives inflows, it mechanically buys these shared stocks — dragging DGRW's NAV along regardless of any thematic or sector catalyst. Combined, the top 5 overlapping ETFs control exposure to 100% ofDGRW's weight.
Overlap computed from constituent-level holdings data across 5 ETFs. Price co-movement with driver ETFs is structural, not coincidental. Not investment advice.
ETF Look-Through Dashboard
Replaces $249/yr MorningstarPeer through the ETF wrapper to see exactly what you own. Every metric is computed from constituent-level data.
Weighted metrics calculated based on 99% of fund assets with available data.
Herfindahl-Hirschman Concentration Index
Morningstar-Style Box
Sector & Cap Explorer
ETF Fundamental Radar
Operational health is mixed, with the bulk of weight in the mid-range (4–6) Piotroski scores.
Piotroski F-Score (Operational Health)
Score 0-9: Measures Profitability, Leverage, and Efficiency
Computed by rolling up individual stock Piotroski F-Scores, Altman Z-Scores, and Beneish M-Scores weighted by each constituent's allocation. Data that Vanguard and BlackRock don't surface.
Dividend Safety True-Up
DeterministicThe dividend-paying companies inside DGRW collectively pay out 43% of their Free Cash Flow to maintain the current yield. This leaves a substantial cash buffer, making dividend cuts unlikely even in a downturn. Based on 91% of fund weight in dividend-paying stocks.
FCF Payout Ratio = Dividends Paid / Free Cash Flow, weighted by constituent allocation. Not investment advice.
Earnings vs. Price Decomposition
ProprietaryDGRW is up 21.6% over the last 12 months. The underlying weighted earnings growth of its constituents is +20.2%. Price performance is closely aligned with fundamental earnings growth — valuations are roughly unchanged.
Earnings growth = weighted average YoY EPS growth of all constituents (capped at ±500% to limit outlier distortion). Based on 97% of fund weight with earnings data. Not investment advice.
Value Creation Map
ROIC vs WACCWhat percentage of DGRW's weight is allocated to companies that create economic value (ROIC > WACC) vs. destroy it?
Of DGRW's analyzed weight, 84% is invested in companies earning more than their cost of capital — genuine value creators. The remaining 16% consists of companies whose ROIC falls below their WACC, effectively destroying shareholder value with every dollar invested.
ROIC-WACC spread for 91% of fund weight with available data. Not investment advice.
Passive Crowding Score
MODERATEHow much of each constituent's market cap is structurally locked in passive ETFs — a proxy for liquidity fragility during sell-offs.
DGRW has a Passive Crowding Score of 39/100. On average, 11.7% of the market capitalization of DGRW's underlying holdings is structurally locked in passive ETF vehicles. This indicates moderate passive ownership density. Index rebalances and ETF creation/redemption activity can amplify short-term volatility in the underlying holdings.
Passive $ = Σ(ETF AUM × holding weight) across all 46 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds). Not investment advice.
Under the Hood — Top 15 Constituents
| # | Ticker | Company | Weight | P/E | F-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MSFT | Microsoft Corp Technology | 6.07% | 26.8x | 5/9 |
| 2 | AAPL | Apple Inc Technology | 5.74% | 37.7x | 8/9 |
| 3 | NVDA | NVIDIA Corp Technology | 5.71% | 32.4x | 4/9 |
| 4 | XOM | Exxon Mobil Corp Energy | 3.68% | 24.5x | 5/9 |
| 5 | META | Meta Platforms Inc Communication Services | 3.10% | 23.0x | 5/9 |
| 6 | HD | Home Depot Inc/The Consumer Cyclical | 2.90% | 22.5x | 4/9 |
| 7 | KO | Coca-Cola Co/The Consumer Defensive | 2.65% | 24.8x | 7/9 |
| 8 | CVX | Chevron Corp Energy | 2.62% | 31.7x | 6/9 |
| 9 | UNH | UnitedHealth Group Inc Healthcare | 2.47% | 28.7x | 6/9 |
| 10 | GOOGL | Alphabet Inc Communication Services | 2.35% | 29.0x | 6/9 |
| 11 | GOOG | Alphabet Inc Communication Services | 2.35% | 28.7x | 6/9 |
| 12 | ORCL | Oracle Corp Technology | 2.35% | 40.5x | 5/9 |
| 13 | AVGO | Broadcom Inc Technology | 2.28% | 86.9x | 8/9 |
| 14 | JPM | JPMorgan Chase & Co Financial Services | 2.07% | 14.3x | 3/9 |
| 15 | JNJ | Johnson & Johnson Healthcare | 2.02% | 26.1x | 4/9 |
Historical Holdings Snapshots
Browse how DGRW’s holdings have changed across SEC filing dates. Showing top holdings per snapshot.
2026-05-24
15 holdings · 48.4% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MSFT | 6.07% | 1,997,777 | $966.2M |
| 2 | AAPL | 5.74% | 3,361,928 | $914.0M |
| 3 | NVDA | 5.71% | 4,877,797 | $909.7M |
| 4 | XOM | 3.68% | 4,863,790 | $585.3M |
| 5 | META | 3.10% | 747,629 | $493.5M |
| 6 | HD | 2.90% | 1,342,156 | $461.8M |
| 7 | KO | 2.65% | 6,024,255 | $421.2M |
| 8 | CVX | 2.62% | 2,733,057 | $416.5M |
| 9 | UNH | 2.47% | 1,190,555 | $393.0M |
| 10 | GOOGL | 2.35% | 1,196,082 | $374.4M |
| 11 | GOOG | 2.35% | 1,192,667 | $374.3M |
| 12 | ORCL | 2.35% | 1,917,917 | $373.8M |
| 13 | AVGO | 2.28% | 1,048,453 | $362.9M |
| 14 | JPM | 2.07% | 1,022,566 | $329.5M |
| 15 | JNJ | 2.02% | 1,554,341 | $321.7M |
2026-05-23
15 holdings · 48.4% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MSFT | 6.07% | 1,997,777 | $966.2M |
| 2 | AAPL | 5.74% | 3,361,928 | $914.0M |
| 3 | NVDA | 5.71% | 4,877,797 | $909.7M |
| 4 | XOM | 3.68% | 4,863,790 | $585.3M |
| 5 | META | 3.10% | 747,629 | $493.5M |
| 6 | HD | 2.90% | 1,342,156 | $461.8M |
| 7 | KO | 2.65% | 6,024,255 | $421.2M |
| 8 | CVX | 2.62% | 2,733,057 | $416.5M |
| 9 | UNH | 2.47% | 1,190,555 | $393.0M |
| 10 | GOOGL | 2.35% | 1,196,082 | $374.4M |
| 11 | GOOG | 2.35% | 1,192,667 | $374.3M |
| 12 | ORCL | 2.35% | 1,917,917 | $373.8M |
| 13 | AVGO | 2.28% | 1,048,453 | $362.9M |
| 14 | JPM | 2.07% | 1,022,566 | $329.5M |
| 15 | JNJ | 2.02% | 1,554,341 | $321.7M |
2026-05-22
15 holdings · 48.4% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MSFT | 6.07% | 1,997,777 | $966.2M |
| 2 | AAPL | 5.74% | 3,361,928 | $914.0M |
| 3 | NVDA | 5.71% | 4,877,797 | $909.7M |
| 4 | XOM | 3.68% | 4,863,790 | $585.3M |
| 5 | META | 3.10% | 747,629 | $493.5M |
| 6 | HD | 2.90% | 1,342,156 | $461.8M |
| 7 | KO | 2.65% | 6,024,255 | $421.2M |
| 8 | CVX | 2.62% | 2,733,057 | $416.5M |
| 9 | UNH | 2.47% | 1,190,555 | $393.0M |
| 10 | GOOGL | 2.35% | 1,196,082 | $374.4M |
| 11 | GOOG | 2.35% | 1,192,667 | $374.3M |
| 12 | ORCL | 2.35% | 1,917,917 | $373.8M |
| 13 | AVGO | 2.28% | 1,048,453 | $362.9M |
| 14 | JPM | 2.07% | 1,022,566 | $329.5M |
| 15 | JNJ | 2.02% | 1,554,341 | $321.7M |
2026-05-21
15 holdings · 48.4% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MSFT | 6.07% | 1,997,777 | $966.2M |
| 2 | AAPL | 5.74% | 3,361,928 | $914.0M |
| 3 | NVDA | 5.71% | 4,877,797 | $909.7M |
| 4 | XOM | 3.68% | 4,863,790 | $585.3M |
| 5 | META | 3.10% | 747,629 | $493.5M |
| 6 | HD | 2.90% | 1,342,156 | $461.8M |
| 7 | KO | 2.65% | 6,024,255 | $421.2M |
| 8 | CVX | 2.62% | 2,733,057 | $416.5M |
| 9 | UNH | 2.47% | 1,190,555 | $393.0M |
| 10 | GOOGL | 2.35% | 1,196,082 | $374.4M |
| 11 | GOOG | 2.35% | 1,192,667 | $374.3M |
| 12 | ORCL | 2.35% | 1,917,917 | $373.8M |
| 13 | AVGO | 2.28% | 1,048,453 | $362.9M |
| 14 | JPM | 2.07% | 1,022,566 | $329.5M |
| 15 | JNJ | 2.02% | 1,554,341 | $321.7M |
2026-05-20
15 holdings · 48.4% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MSFT | 6.07% | 1,997,777 | $966.2M |
| 2 | AAPL | 5.74% | 3,361,928 | $914.0M |
| 3 | NVDA | 5.71% | 4,877,797 | $909.7M |
| 4 | XOM | 3.68% | 4,863,790 | $585.3M |
| 5 | META | 3.10% | 747,629 | $493.5M |
| 6 | HD | 2.90% | 1,342,156 | $461.8M |
| 7 | KO | 2.65% | 6,024,255 | $421.2M |
| 8 | CVX | 2.62% | 2,733,057 | $416.5M |
| 9 | UNH | 2.47% | 1,190,555 | $393.0M |
| 10 | GOOGL | 2.35% | 1,196,082 | $374.4M |
| 11 | GOOG | 2.35% | 1,192,667 | $374.3M |
| 12 | ORCL | 2.35% | 1,917,917 | $373.8M |
| 13 | AVGO | 2.28% | 1,048,453 | $362.9M |
| 14 | JPM | 2.07% | 1,022,566 | $329.5M |
| 15 | JNJ | 2.02% | 1,554,341 | $321.7M |
2026-05-19
15 holdings · 48.4% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MSFT | 6.07% | 1,997,777 | $966.2M |
| 2 | AAPL | 5.74% | 3,361,928 | $914.0M |
| 3 | NVDA | 5.71% | 4,877,797 | $909.7M |
| 4 | XOM | 3.68% | 4,863,790 | $585.3M |
| 5 | META | 3.10% | 747,629 | $493.5M |
| 6 | HD | 2.90% | 1,342,156 | $461.8M |
| 7 | KO | 2.65% | 6,024,255 | $421.2M |
| 8 | CVX | 2.62% | 2,733,057 | $416.5M |
| 9 | UNH | 2.47% | 1,190,555 | $393.0M |
| 10 | GOOGL | 2.35% | 1,196,082 | $374.4M |
| 11 | GOOG | 2.35% | 1,192,667 | $374.3M |
| 12 | ORCL | 2.35% | 1,917,917 | $373.8M |
| 13 | AVGO | 2.28% | 1,048,453 | $362.9M |
| 14 | JPM | 2.07% | 1,022,566 | $329.5M |
| 15 | JNJ | 2.02% | 1,554,341 | $321.7M |
Source: SEC filings and fund provider disclosures. Shows last 6 snapshot dates, top 15 holdings per date by weight.
Risk Profile
Sharpe = risk-adjusted return (higher is better). Computed from 1,200+ trading days with 5% risk-free rate.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
What Drove DGRW Today?
Daily return attribution — which holdings contributed most (and least) to the fund's move.
Technical Setup
AI GeneratedDGRW is currently trading at $95.76, presenting a scenario where immediate price action must be weighed against the absence of broader context regarding recent drawdowns or volatility metrics. Without specific data on how far the current level deviates from historical peaks or troughs, it remains difficult to determine if this valuation represents a structural inflection point or a temporary consolidation within a wider trend. The lack of information concerning fundamental backdrops further obscures whether any observed momentum is driven by organic business performance or speculative flows detached from intrinsic value. In the absence of quantified volatility measures or defined drawdown thresholds, assessing the fragility of current market sentiment relies entirely on interpreting this single price data point in isolation. A high absolute price does not inherently indicate strength; similarly, without knowing the depth of recent corrections or the stability of trading volumes around $95.76, one cannot definitively characterize the risk profile as either resilient or precarious. The technical picture appears incomplete for a robust assessment of whether momentum is sustainable or prone to sharp reversals based solely on this snapshot. Ultimately, the current data provides a static coordinate rather than a dynamic trajectory necessary to evaluate the interplay between price levels and underlying market stress. Determining if the asset's behavior reflects a stable long-term positioning or a volatile short-term reaction requires additional layers of information regarding historical performance ranges and macroeconomic influences that are not present in this summary. Readers must consider how $95.76 aligns with their
Underwater (Drawdown from Peak)
How far below the all-time high the price has been over time. Deeper = more pain for holders.
Rolling 60-Day Beta vs S&P 500 (VOO)
How the ETF's sensitivity to market moves changes over time. β > 1 = more volatile than the market.
Yield & Income
Sector Drift Over Time
How DGRW’s sector allocation has shifted across snapshots. Use the slider to travel through time.
Active Conviction Tracker
Shares bought and sold between the latest two data snapshots — reveals what the fund manager is actually doing.
AUM & Capital Flow Tracker
Estimated assets under management derived from SEC filings and daily price movements — tracks how the fund's value evolves over time.
Estimated AUM derived from the latest SEC N-PORT filing TNA ($15.92B) scaled by daily price changes. Filing snapshots update when new regulatory filings are published (quarterly for most funds, daily for ARK).
Explore More
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-06-02.
SecuritiesDB is for informational purposes only. Not investment advice.