AFLG vs IVV
First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, AFLG or IVV?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. AFLG led over 3Y, IVV over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. AFLG is less concentrated, with 33.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%.
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 | AFLG | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.55% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $784M | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.71% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 432 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +13.96%Best | +12.51% |
| 1Y Return | +17.26% | +17.57%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.75%Best | +21.27% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.35% | +12.95%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.7%Best | 16.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -35.8% | -33.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,901 | $18,384Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 33.6%Best | 37.9% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 4, 2019 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 4, 2019 to Sep 11, 2026 (6.8 years).
AFLG 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 6.8 years both funds cover.
AFLG vs IVV Performance
First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF (AFLG) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year AFLG returned +17.26% while IVV returned +17.57%. Year to date, AFLG is up 13.96% versus a gain of 12.51% for IVV.
Over three years, AFLG compounded at +21.75% per year against +21.27% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +12.35% and +12.95% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +15.46% annualized vs +13.58%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.9% compared with 16.7% for AFLG. 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 -35.8% for AFLG 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 0.98. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AFLG charges 0.55% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $55 vs $3 annually, a gap of $52 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AFLG currently yields 0.71% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
89.5% of AFLG's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 60.6% of IVV's money is in holdings AFLG also owns.
Most of AFLG is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
183 positions in common, counted across the 215 positions we hold weights for in AFLG and 505 in IVV, against full books of 432 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 314 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for AFLG (38.8% of the fund), and 29 for AFLG that do not appear in IVV (8.6%).
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 AFLG | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.76% | 7.98% | 0.22% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.17% | 6.86% | 0.69% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 3.80% | 5.44% | 1.64% |
| GOOGLAlphabet A Usd 0.001 | 6.03% | 3.19% | 2.84% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.42% | 4.01% | 1.59% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.85% | 2.98% | 0.13% |
| METAMeta Platforms, Inc. | 0.71% | 1.94% | 1.23% |
| BRK.BBerkshire Hathaway B | 0.60% | 1.43% | 0.83% |
| LRCXLam Research Corpcommon Stock | 1.39% | 0.58% | 0.81% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 0.94% | 0.94% | 0.00% |
89.5% of AFLG 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, AFLG or IVV?
AFLG has an expense ratio of 0.55% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $52 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, AFLG or IVV?
Over the past year AFLG returned +17.26% vs +17.57% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), AFLG annualized +13.58% vs +15.46% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, AFLG or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 16.9% annualized versus 16.7% for AFLG. Worst drawdown: AFLG -35.8% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both AFLG and IVV?
AFLG and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, 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 AFLG and IVV?
89.5% of AFLG's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 60.6% of IVV's is in holdings AFLG also owns. They hold 183 positions in common, counted across the 215 positions we hold weights for in AFLG and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, AFLG or IVV?
AFLG yields 0.71% while IVV yields 1.06%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than AFLG?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. AFLG led over 3Y, IVV over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. AFLG is less concentrated, with 33.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.