DODGX: is the active fee worth paying?

Produced by FFP One (https://ffp.one), an AI research tool for professional investors, built on SEC filings. A research agent wrote this report end to end. It draws mainly on the filings and market data, marks outside sources, and ends with a table showing where its figures came from.

Question: I own DODGX. Is it actually a value fund, is it different enough from an S&P 500 index fund to justify the active fee, and what do I really own underneath?
Model: GPT-6.1 Sol (OpenAI)
Generated: 9 October 2026

---

Premise verdict: confirmed on “value” and “different”; reframed on “worth the fee.” DODGX is not an S&P 500 portfolio with an active-management label. Its latest disclosed holdings show substantially lower portfolio valuations, a large healthcare overweight, much less technology, and approximately 82.2% active share versus IVV, the covered S&P 500 index-fund proxy.

But being different is necessary—not sufficient—to justify an active fee. The evidence supports owning DODGX as a deliberate value-oriented complement to an index fund. It does not establish that it is the better default core holding or that its managers will outperform after costs.

Data dates: Analysis as of October 9, 2026. The latest disclosed holdings for DODGX, IVV, and the passive-value comparator IWD are June 30, 2026. Available market prices extend through October 8. I verified that FY2026 fundamentals are available; I did not assume FY2025 was the latest year.

1. Is it actually a value fund?

Yes, relative to the broad index—and not merely because a fund database calls it “Large Value.”

These are the published portfolio aggregates, not averages of individual companies’ valuation ratios:

Source: DODGX, IVV, and IWD N-PORT filings (portfolio holdings schedules); all three holdings snapshots dated June 30, 2026.

DODGX’s P/E is approximately 26% below IVV’s, with larger discounts on book value and sales. Against a passive value portfolio, however, its P/E discount is much smaller. That distinction matters: some of what you receive is value-style exposure that does not inherently require active management.

The discount comes with a different earnings profile

Source: DODGX and IVV N-PORT filings (portfolio holdings schedules).

Thus, “lower-priced” should not be translated into “the same businesses at a bargain.” DODGX owns a mix with lower aggregate profitability and growth, and more exposure to companies reporting losses. Sector composition also affects these comparisons.

Not every holding is conventionally cheap

A check of three important holdings illustrates why portfolio style and individual-stock cheapness are different questions:

Sources: company FY2025 10-K financial statements and daily market price data; sector comparisons computed from FY2025 10-K financial statements and daily market price data. Company multiples use their latest available FY2025 annual results. Historical medians use positive daily P/Es.

Schwab is below its own historical multiple but above its sector median. RTX is near its historical median. CVS’s annual earnings are affected by the impairment discussed below.

Conclusion: DODGX has a genuine relative-value tilt, but it is neither uniformly low-P/E nor demonstrably “historically cheap” as a whole. The available fund disclosures do not publish a historical DODGX portfolio-multiple series, so that latter claim cannot be tested here.

2. Is it different enough from an S&P 500 fund?

Clearly yes.

Matching the complete disclosed equity holdings by CUSIP, ticker, and an audited issuer-name fallback produces:

• 17.64% equity weight overlap with IVV.
• 82.19% estimated active share, including a common residual non-equity bucket.
• 61 shared securities, representing 79.64% of DODGX’s net assets.
• 19.15% of DODGX’s net assets in equity securities absent from IVV.

Calculated from DODGX and IVV N-PORT filings (portfolio holdings schedules).

Those results are not contradictory. DODGX owns many familiar index constituents, but at very different weights. Shared names do not mean shared exposure.

The principal sector bets

Source: DODGX and IVV N-PORT filings (portfolio holdings schedules). These are our classifications, not GICS; Insurance is separate from Financial Services. Sector weights omit unclassified equity holdings: 4.58% of DODGX’s net assets and 2.83% of IVV’s. DODGX’s unclassified sleeve includes its 3.54% Taiwan Semiconductor position, so the 9.67% Technology row does not capture all of its technology exposure.

The June portfolio contained no disclosed Apple, Nvidia, Broadcom, or Tesla positions. But it did own Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Meta. This is not an exclusionary “no growth stocks” strategy; it is a selective portfolio that sharply reduces several dominant index exposures.

3. What do you really own underneath?

DODGX was 98.79% invested in equities, across 84 equity security lines. It is predominantly a stock portfolio, not a defensive stock-and-bond allocation.

Combining Alphabet’s two share classes, the ten largest underlying issuers were:

Source: DODGX N-PORT filing (portfolio holdings schedule); weights are percentages of net assets, combining security lines by issuer.

The economic picture is therefore more specific than “diversified value”:

• A substantial healthcare bet, including CVS, Humana, UnitedHealth, Cigna, and pharmaceutical holdings.
• Meaningful financial-services and insurance exposure.
• Selected industrial holdings and large technology/platform businesses.
• A material position in Taiwan Semiconductor despite its absence from the S&P 500 proxy.

Non-U.S.-incorporated holdings represented 17.14% of net assets, versus 2.94% for IVV. That is an incorporation measure—not the fraction of revenue earned abroad or a comprehensive geopolitical-risk measure.

There is also a coverage limitation: the Taiwan Semiconductor local-share position is not ticker-resolved in this fund snapshot. Its 3.54% ownership weight is visible, but it is not included in the covered financial aggregates.

4. The key risk is whether weaker earnings recover—not just whether multiples rise

The filing-derived exposures identify a disproportionate healthcare underwriting/regulatory bet:

Source: the 10-K’s segment & revenue-disaggregation disclosures and Item 1 (Business) / Item 1A (Risk Factors) / Item 7 (MD&A), explicitly filtered to risk disclosures.

These percentages measure holdings whose filings disclose the topic. They are not estimates of losses, and they overlap—do not add them.

CVS shows both the risk and the recovery case

CVS’s latest annual filing states:

“During 2025, the Health Care Delivery reporting unit continued to experience challenges, including the impact of persistent elevated utilization levels.”

The same section records a $5.7 billion goodwill impairment during the third quarter of 2025.
First-party filing: CVS FY2025 10-K, Item 7, “Recoverability of Goodwill.”

However, the newer evidence improves that picture. In its August 5, 2026 earnings 8-K, CVS reported:

• A second-quarter medical benefit ratio of 87.4%, versus 89.9% a year earlier. CVS attributed the improvement both to better underlying Government-business performance and to the absence of a $471 million premium deficiency reserve recorded in the prior-year Group Medicare Advantage product line; it is not solely an underlying trend improvement.
• Increased full-year adjusted EPS guidance to $7.90–$8.10, from $7.30–$7.50.
• Continued caution about “continued elevated cost trends and the potential for macro headwinds.”

I also read CVS’s newer August 17 board-change 8-K. It does not supersede that earnings update or establish a deterioration in operating performance.

Interpretation: You own exposure to an earnings-recovery thesis, not simply statistically cheap assets. The latest CVS filing provides support for recovery, but not certainty—and it cannot establish the outlook for the entire healthcare sleeve.

5. [WEB] Fees, manager disclosures, and actual fund returns

This section uses external web sources, kept separate from the warehouse and filing evidence above.

What the active fee costs

Current issuer disclosures report:

DODGX therefore has an approximate 48-basis-point annual expense hurdle versus IVV, or 33 basis points versus IWD, before differences in trading costs and taxes.

Sources: Dodge & Cox disclosures, IVV issuer page, and IWD issuer page.

Does the performance record support paying it?

The latest accessible common month-end figures are September 30, 2026:

Sources: AAII/Morningstar data for DODGX; the IVV and IWD issuer pages above. DODGX figures are rounded to one decimal. These are total returns, not the warehouse’s holdings-based price-return estimates.

The record is mixed:

• DODGX trails the S&P 500 proxy over every displayed period.
• It also trails the passive-value comparator over the shorter periods.
• It outperformed IWD over ten years, after fund expenses.

That ten-year result supports a possible manager-value case. It does not isolate risk-adjusted stock-picking skill from differences in sectors, foreign holdings, or portfolio construction. In its June 30, 2026 investment commentary, the manager attributed recent relative weakness mainly to its Information Technology underweight and weak performance from Fidelity National Information Services, Fiserv, and Charter Communications. This is the manager’s first-half attribution, not an explanation of every period in the September return table, and identifies stock-specific active bets beyond the healthcare recovery example.

The manager’s latest linked fact sheet remains dated June 30, 2026 and reports 82.2% active share, closely corroborating our calculation. Its latest linked holdings document is also June-dated.

Tax consideration: Dodge & Cox states that capital gains, if any, are distributed in December and March. In a taxable account, evaluate distributions and the tax cost of selling your existing position; the expense ratio alone is not your all-in cost.

End [WEB] section.

6. Honest synthesis: how I would frame your ownership decision

DODGX passes the “am I paying for something genuinely different?” test. It does not conclusively pass the “has active management justified its cost?” test.

• As a complement to an S&P 500 fund: defensible if you deliberately want less technology concentration, more healthcare/value exposure, and manager-selected positions outside the index.
• As your only core equity fund: you should recognize that you are making substantial sector and manager bets, not buying a neutral substitute for the market.
• If your objective is simply a value tilt: compare it with passive value alternatives. The lower valuation versus IVV is not, by itself, evidence that active management is necessary.
• If retaining it: judge it against a value benchmark as well as the S&P 500, and accept that its distinctiveness can produce prolonged relative underperformance.

Bottom line: You really own an almost fully invested, selective equity portfolio with a pronounced healthcare/value tilt—not a closet index fund. Keeping it is most defensible as an intentional allocation to that strategy, rather than because “value” guarantees a bargain or an active fee guarantees superior returns.

Methodology and provenance

• Fund identity and latest snapshots: DODGX, IVV, and IWD N-PORT filings (portfolio holdings schedules). Portfolio multiples, margins, growth, coverage, equity allocation, and sector weights come directly from published columns.
• Holdings, concentration, geography, and overlap: DODGX and IVV N-PORT filings (portfolio holdings schedules). Active share calculated as half the absolute weight differences, with one residual non-equity bucket. Matching used CUSIP/ticker and a verified case-insensitive name fallback for missing identifiers.
• Latest-fiscal-year verification: FY2026 financial statements, with periods through August 30, 2026. Latest-per-company checks found 10 DODGX security lines with FY2026 results and no populated DODGX holding fundamentals lagging newer annual rows. The published IVV and IWD snapshot joins lag newer annual rows on 2.80% and 2.23% of net assets, respectively. Their portfolio aggregates remain the latest published figures; they were not silently rebuilt.
• Valuation context: Company multiples use FY2025 10-K financial statements and daily market price data; annual and pooled 2021–2025 medians were queried. Sector medians are computed from FY2025 10-K financial statements and daily market price data. No fund valuation-history series is available for DODGX or IVV in that company series.
• Risk exposures: The 10-K’s segment & revenue-disaggregation disclosures and Item 1 (Business) / Item 1A (Risk Factors) / Item 7 (MD&A), filtered by series and risk disclosure; concept weights reported separately because they overlap.
• Filing bodies: CVS FY2025 10-K, Item 7, “Recoverability of Goodwill”; August 5, 2026 8-K, Exhibit 99.1; August 17, 2026 8-K, Items 5.02/7.01. Quotes were retrieved from full filing text, not summaries.
• Freshness limitations: A review identified zero material 8-K events for DODGX, and searches of company SEC filings returned no DODGX filing bodies, including 8-Ks. That is a coverage limitation—not proof of no developments. Fund recency was therefore supplemented with clearly labeled web disclosures.
• Returns: Daily market price data were checked through October 8, but fixed-holdings, dividend-blind price estimates were not presented as actual fund total returns. Fees and actual NAV total returns are exclusively identified in the [WEB] section.

---

Exported from FFP One · ffp.one · 10 October 2026