LQDW vs. DGRO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LQDW (iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF) and DGRO (iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LQDW is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the CBOE LQD BuyWrite Index, while DGRO is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Morningstar US Dividend Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LQDW returned 3.79%/yr vs 16.99%/yr for DGRO. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LQDW charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for DGRO.

Performance

LQDW vs. DGRO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW) and iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF (DGRO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LQDW achieves a 1.25% return, which is significantly lower than DGRO's 8.76% return.

LQDW

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 0.83%
• YTD: 1.25%
• 6M: 1.65%
• 1Y: 6.49%
• 3Y*: 3.79%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DGRO

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 3.14%
• YTD: 8.76%
• 6M: 8.75%
• 1Y: 22.54%
• 3Y*: 16.99%
• 5Y*: 10.54%
• 10Y*: 13.30%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LQDW vs. DGRO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF	1.25%	9.05%	2.60%	3.99%	-6.78%
DGRO iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF	8.76%	15.69%	16.62%	10.47%	-0.91%

Correlation

The correlation between LQDW and DGRO is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.33
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.31
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 23, 2022	0.34

Return for Risk

LQDW vs. DGRO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

LQDW

LQDW Risk / Return Rank: 54
LQDW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
LQDW Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
LQDW Omega Ratio Rank: 61
LQDW Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
LQDW Martin Ratio Rank: 54

DGRO

DGRO Risk / Return Rank: 71
DGRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
DGRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
DGRO Omega Ratio Rank: 70
DGRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
DGRO Martin Ratio Rank: 71

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

LQDW vs. DGRO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW) 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.

	LQDW	DGRO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.85	2.39	-0.55
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	3.49	-0.87
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.43	-0.06
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.51	3.50	-0.99
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.39	13.52	-4.13
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LQDW vs. DGRO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LQDW Sharpe Ratio is 1.85, which is comparable to the DGRO Sharpe Ratio of 2.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LQDW and DGRO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LQDW	DGRO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.85	2.39	-0.55
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.77	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.80	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.46	0.76	-0.31

Drawdowns

LQDW vs. DGRO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LQDW drawdown since its inception was -9.20%, smaller than the maximum DGRO drawdown of -35.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQDW and DGRO.

Drawdown Indicators

	LQDW	DGRO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.20%	-35.10%	+25.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.59%	-6.47%	+3.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-6.74%	-14.03%	+7.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.31%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.10%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.35%	-0.28%	-0.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.35%	-3.44%	+1.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.69%	1.67%	-0.98%

Volatility

LQDW vs. DGRO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW) is 1.46%, while iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF (DGRO) has a volatility of 2.21%. This indicates that LQDW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DGRO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LQDW	DGRO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.46%	2.21%	-0.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.02%	6.91%	-3.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.53%	9.48%	-5.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.49%	13.82%	-8.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.49%	16.62%	-11.13%

LQDW vs. DGRO - Expense Ratio Comparison

LQDW has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is higher than DGRO's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

LQDW vs. DGRO - Dividend Comparison

LQDW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.57%, more than DGRO's 1.96% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DGRO iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF	1.96%	2.09%	2.26%	2.45%	2.34%	1.93%	2.30%	2.21%	2.44%	2.03%	2.27%	2.52%
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF	12.57%	16.02%	15.74%	19.28%	8.85%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LQDW and DGRO in my portfolio?

LQDW and DGRO have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LQDW or DGRO?

DGRO has higher volatility (2.21%) compared to LQDW (1.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQDW dropped -9.20% vs DGRO's -35.10%.

Which ETF is better, LQDW or DGRO?

On 3-year performance, DGRO leads with 16.99% vs 3.79% for LQDW. On fees, DGRO is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, LQDW has been the lower-risk option at 1.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LQDW or DGRO?

Over the 3-year period, DGRO has performed better with a 16.99% return vs 3.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LQDW or DGRO?

DGRO is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for LQDW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LQDW or DGRO?

LQDW has the higher dividend yield at 12.57%, compared with 1.96% for DGRO.

What is the main difference between LQDW and DGRO?

LQDW is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while DGRO is Large Cap Growth Equities. LQDW tracks CBOE LQD BuyWrite Index, while DGRO tracks Morningstar US Dividend Growth Index. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for LQDW and 0.08% for DGRO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DGRO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 1.85), 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.