ABFL vs IVV
Abacus FCF Leaders ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, ABFL or IVV?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. ABFL is less concentrated, with 33.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%.
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
| Metric | ABFL | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $528M | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.54% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 60 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +12.34%Best | +12.27% |
| 1Y Return | +12.07% | +17.04%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.08% | +21.24%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.44% | +13.08%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.8% | 15.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -35.0% | -33.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,430 | $18,490Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 33.0%Best | 37.8% |
| Fund Family | FCF Advisors | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 27, 2016 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 28, 2016 to Sep 17, 2026 (10 years).
ABFL 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 covers the 10 years both funds cover.
ABFL vs IVV Performance
Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) is an ETF from FCF Advisors and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year ABFL returned +12.07% while IVV returned +17.04%. Year to date, ABFL is up 12.34% versus a gain of 12.27% for IVV.
Over three years, ABFL compounded at +16.08% per year against +21.24% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +10.44% and +13.08% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +14.32% annualized vs +13.87%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ABFL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.8% compared with 15.4% for IVV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -35.0% for ABFL and -33.9% for IVV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.95. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ABFL charges 0.49% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $3 annually, a gap of $46 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ABFL currently yields 0.54% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
78.1% of ABFL's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 27.5% of IVV's money is in holdings ABFL also owns.
Most of ABFL is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
38 positions in common, counted across the 56 positions we hold weights for in ABFL and 490 in IVV, against full books of 60 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 444 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for ABFL (71.1% of the fund), and 16 for ABFL that do not appear in IVV (18.0%).
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
| Stock | Weight in ABFL | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 4.97% | 8.07% | 3.10% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.23% | 7.02% | 1.79% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.48% | 2.65% | 0.83% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.95% | 1.38% | 1.57% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 2.89% | 0.68% | 2.21% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 2.70% | 0.72% | 1.98% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 2.40% | 0.95% | 1.45% |
| LRCXLrcx Uw Equity | 2.61% | 0.57% | 2.04% |
| BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 2.92% | 0.21% | 2.71% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 2.56% | 0.47% | 2.09% |
78.1% of ABFL 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.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ABFL or IVV?
ABFL has an expense ratio of 0.49% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $46 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ABFL or IVV?
Over the past year ABFL returned +12.07% vs +17.04% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), ABFL annualized +13.87% vs +14.32% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ABFL or IVV?
ABFL has been the more volatile fund at 15.8% annualized versus 15.4% for IVV. Worst drawdown: ABFL -35.0% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both ABFL and IVV?
ABFL and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between ABFL and IVV?
78.1% of ABFL's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 27.5% of IVV's is in holdings ABFL also owns. They hold 38 positions in common, counted across the 56 positions we hold weights for in ABFL and 490 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, ABFL or IVV?
ABFL yields 0.54% while IVV yields 1.06%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than ABFL?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. ABFL is less concentrated, with 33.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.