AAEQ vs IVV

AAEQ vs IVV

Which is better, AAEQ or IVV?

IVV costs less.

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.0%.

Lower Fees: IVVLess Concentrated: IVV

MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.

Side-by-Side Comparison

MetricAAEQIVV
Expense Ratio0.09%0.03%Best
AUM$506M$876.4B
Dividend Yield0.09%1.06%
Holdings353508
YTD Return+10.85%+12.39%Best
1Y Return-+16.61%
3Y Return (annualized)-+21.38%
5Y Return (annualized)-+13.51%
Top 10 Weight38.0%37.8%Best
Fund FamilyAlpha ArchitectiShares by BlackRock (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Blend
InceptionDec 9, 2025May 15, 2000

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

AAEQ vs IVV growth

Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

AAEQ vs IVV Performance

Alpha Architect US Equity 2 ETF (AAEQ) is an ETF from Alpha Architect and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Year to date, AAEQ is up 10.85% versus a gain of 12.39% for IVV.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

AAEQ charges 0.09% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $9 vs $3 annually, a gap of $6 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AAEQ currently yields 0.09% against 1.06% for IVV.

Holdings Overlap

AAEQ already in IVV98.0%
IVV already in AAEQ90.0%

98.0% of AAEQ's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 90.0% of IVV's money is in holdings AAEQ also owns.

Most of AAEQ is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.

282 positions in common, counted across the 293 positions we hold weights for in AAEQ and 490 in IVV, against full books of 353 and 508.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 200 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for AAEQ (8.6% of the fund), and 11 for AAEQ that do not appear in IVV (1.9%).

Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.

Top Shared Holdings

StockWeight in AAEQWeight in IVVDifference
NVDANvidia Corp8.21%8.07%0.14%
AAPLApple, Inc6.96%7.02%0.06%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp5.67%5.69%0.02%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc3.78%3.84%0.06%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A3.07%3.00%0.07%
AVGOBroadcom Inc2.81%2.65%0.16%
GOOGAlphabet Inc2.46%2.39%0.07%
METAMeta Platforms Inc1.89%1.90%0.01%
MUMicron Technology, Inc.1.66%1.63%0.03%
TSLATesla Inc1.53%1.56%0.03%

98.0% of AAEQ is already inside IVV.

You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.

AAEQIVV

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, AAEQ or IVV?

AAEQ has an expense ratio of 0.09% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $6 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between AAEQ and IVV?

98.0% of AAEQ's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 90.0% of IVV's is in holdings AAEQ also owns. They hold 282 positions in common, counted across the 293 positions we hold weights for in AAEQ and 490 in IVV.

Which pays a higher dividend, AAEQ or IVV?

AAEQ yields 0.09% while IVV yields 1.06%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is IVV better than AAEQ?

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.