ICVT vs. DGRO
ICVT (iShares Convertible Bond ETF) and DGRO (iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ICVT is a Convertible Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg U.S. Convertible Cash Pay Bond > $250MM Index, while DGRO is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Morningstar US Dividend Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ICVT returned 12.80%/yr vs 13.44%/yr for DGRO. Their 0.55 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. ICVT charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for DGRO.
Performance
ICVT vs. DGRO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ICVT achieves a 15.73% return, which is significantly higher than DGRO's 13.39% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with ICVT having a 12.80% annualized return and DGRO not far ahead at 13.44%.
ICVT
- 1D
- -0.13%
- 1M
- -3.58%
- 6M
- 10.12%
- YTD
- 15.73%
- 1Y
- 25.68%
- 3Y*
- 15.44%
- 5Y*
- 5.74%
- 10Y*
- 12.80%
- ALL TIME*
- 11.03%
DGRO
- 1D
- -0.28%
- 1M
- 0.97%
- 6M
- 9.59%
- YTD
- 13.39%
- 1Y
- 24.21%
- 3Y*
- 16.30%
- 5Y*
- 11.08%
- 10Y*
- 13.44%
- ALL TIME*
- 12.47%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $103.52M | $104.25M | $110.17M | |
| $56.37M | $69.08M | $90.45M |
ICVT vs. DGRO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ICVT iShares Convertible Bond ETF | 15.73% | 18.10% | 10.61% | 15.35% | -20.66% | -0.66% | 61.01% | 21.76% | -0.27% | 16.38% |
DGRO iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF | 13.39% | 15.69% | 16.62% | 10.47% | -7.91% | 26.64% | 9.50% | 29.87% | -2.38% | 23.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between ICVT and DGRO is 0.35, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.35 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.53 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.60 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.59 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2015 | 0.55 |
Over the past year, the correlation between ICVT and DGRO has dropped to 0.35 - well below their long-term average of 0.55, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
ICVT vs. DGRO — Risk / Return Rank
ICVT
DGRO
ICVT vs. DGRO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Convertible Bond ETF (ICVT) and iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF (DGRO). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| ICVT | DGRO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.03 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.61 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | 1.45 | -0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.08 | 3.61 | -1.53 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.79 | 14.07 | -6.27 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ICVT vs. DGRO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ICVT drawdown since its inception was -33.25%, smaller than the maximum DGRO drawdown of -35.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICVT and DGRO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ICVT | DGRO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.25% | -35.10% | +1.85% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.65% | -6.47% | -5.18% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -11.65% | -14.03% | +2.38% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.95% | -19.31% | -10.64% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -33.25% | -35.10% | +1.85% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.79% | -1.35% | -7.44% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.43% | -3.41% | -6.02% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.11% | 1.66% | +1.45% |
Volatility
ICVT vs. DGRO - Volatility Comparison
iShares Convertible Bond ETF (ICVT) has a higher volatility of 6.39% compared to iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF (DGRO) at 3.21%. This indicates that ICVT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DGRO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ICVT | DGRO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.39% | 3.21% | +3.18% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.58% | 7.12% | +7.46% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.19% | 9.61% | +7.58% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.78% | 13.79% | -0.01% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.73% | 16.58% | -0.85% |
ICVT vs. DGRO - Expense Ratio Comparison
ICVT has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than DGRO's 0.08% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
ICVT vs. DGRO - Dividend Comparison
ICVT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.39%, less than DGRO's 1.89% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DGRO iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF | 1.89% | 2.09% | 2.26% | 2.45% | 2.34% | 1.93% | 2.30% | 2.21% | 2.44% | 2.03% | 2.27% | 2.52% |
ICVT iShares Convertible Bond ETF | 1.29% | 1.73% | 2.19% | 1.85% | 1.93% | 7.70% | 3.98% | 1.86% | 4.82% | 2.56% | 3.06% | 1.57% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ICVT and DGRO have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ICVT has higher volatility (6.39%) compared to DGRO (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICVT dropped -33.25% vs DGRO's -35.10%.
On 10-year performance, DGRO leads with 13.44% vs 12.80% for ICVT. On fees, DGRO is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, DGRO has been the lower-risk option at 3.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, DGRO has performed better with a 13.44% return vs 12.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
DGRO is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for ICVT.
DGRO has the higher dividend yield at 1.89%, compared with 1.29% for ICVT.
ICVT is categorized as Convertible Bonds, while DGRO is Large Cap Growth Equities. ICVT tracks Bloomberg U.S. Convertible Cash Pay Bond > $250MM Index, while DGRO tracks Morningstar US Dividend Growth Index. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for ICVT and 0.08% for DGRO.
DGRO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.44 vs 1.41), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for ICVT and DGRO
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer