1-year period
Sep 18, 2025 – Sep 18, 2026+11.58%cumulative total return
#45 of 97 eligible investments on these dates.
44 investments have a higher return.
(45 − 1) ÷ (97 − 1)≈ 0.4583
Armchair Insider
DGRW WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund
Quality and growth screens add a dividend-equity comparison beyond yield alone. Dividends and share prices can fall; sector concentration and valuation still matter.
Total-return consistency rank#41100 eligible investments
The recent period is the weaker standing, setting a ranking score of 0.4583. Lower scores rank first.
Hypothetical investment
Growth of $10,000
Dividends reinvested · no additional contributions
DGRW would be worth$17,8185-year growth · as of Sep 18, 2026
S&P 500 (SPY)$18,763Same $10,000 · same dates
Total gain / loss+$7,818+78.2% total return
DGRWS&P 500 (SPY)
Sep 20, 2021 · $10,000 investedSep 18, 2026
Based on adjusted market prices through the latest available completed session, before personal taxes and trading costs.
Checking the latest completed session…
Market performance
Total return
Price movement plus reinvested distributions, compared with SPY.
+78.2% over 5 years
1 YEAR TOTAL RETURN+11.6%#45 return rank · 97 peers
Price87% of return+10.1%
Dividend13% of return+1.5%
5 YEARS TOTAL RETURN+78.2%+12.3% / yr annualized#19 return rank · 80 peers
Price81% of return+63.4%
Dividend19% of return+14.7%
Dividend includes all distributions and reinvestment.
Sep 20, 2021Sep 18, 2026
Total return+78.18%
S&P 500 (SPY)+87.63%
Annualized return+12.26%
Largest drawdown-17.27%
Transparent ranking calculation
Why DGRW ranks #41
Total-return consistency · Compared with the active Armchair Insider collection through Sep 18, 2026.
5-year period
Sep 20, 2021 – Sep 18, 2026+78.18%cumulative total return
#19 of 80 eligible investments on these dates.
18 investments have a higher return.
(19 − 1) ÷ (80 − 1)≈ 0.2278
Period score = (rank − 1) ÷ (eligible count − 1). This is the fraction of other eligible investments ahead of this one, from 0 (none ahead) to 1 (all ahead). It makes standings comparable when the two periods have different peer counts. A single eligible investment scores 0.
Use the weaker period
max(0.4583, 0.2278)≈ 0.4583
Lower scores come first. A stronger period cannot cancel a weaker one.
Add the two period scores
0.4583 + 0.2278≈ 0.6862
The lower combined score comes first when the weaker-period scores match.
DGRW places #41 of 100
The recent period is the weaker standing, setting a ranking score of 0.4583. Lower scores rank first.
Remaining tie-breaks & return formula
If both scores tie, higher longer total-return rate comes first, followed by higher recent total return. Investments equal on both scores and both returns to eight decimal places share a rank; ticker A–Z only orders those tied rows.
For DGRW, the longer total-return tie-break is +12.2623% annualized; the recent total-return tie-break is +11.5786% cumulative.
Total return = 100 × (ending adjusted close ÷ starting adjusted close − 1). The period standings compare cumulative total returns on the same dates. Annualization is only used for the longer-return tie-break.
Annualized return = 100 × ((1 + total return ÷ 100)^(1 ÷ years) − 1), with years measured as elapsed days ÷ 365.2425. Histories under one year are never annualized. Peer returns are compared to eight decimal places; score sorting uses unrounded fractions. Numbers above are rounded for display.
This ranks observed total-return consistency, not business quality, dividend safety or expected future return. Each investment is compared with eligible peers over its own exact dates, so peer counts can differ. No quality, valuation or risk factors are added to this calculation.
This explains the collection’s default ranking. Search, category filters and chart periods do not change it; choosing another sort changes the list order. This is Income Lens’s calculation, not a score published by the strategy creator.
Why it is in this section
Quality and growth screens add a dividend-equity comparison beyond yield alone.
What to investigate
Dividends and share prices can fall; sector concentration and valuation still matter.
Independent selection; creator ownership or endorsement has not been verified. Issuer strategy establishes its exposure, not the sustainability of its payout.