AFMC vs IVV
First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, AFMC or IVV?
Mid Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. AFMC led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. AFMC is less concentrated, with 11.7% 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 | AFMC | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.68% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $214M | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.69% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 526 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +17.39%Best | +12.70% |
| 1Y Return | +20.43%Best | +19.36% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.71% | +21.16%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.77% | +12.75%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.3% | 16.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -42.1% | -33.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,677 | $18,221Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 11.7%Best | 37.9% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid 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 8, 2026 (6.8 years).
AFMC 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.
AFMC vs IVV Performance
First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF (AFMC) 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 AFMC returned +20.43% while IVV returned +19.36%. Year to date, AFMC is up 17.39% versus a gain of 12.70% for IVV.
Over three years, AFMC compounded at +19.71% per year against +21.16% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +10.77% and +12.75% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +15.51% annualized vs +12.06%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
AFMC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.3% compared with 16.9% 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 -42.1% for AFMC 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 0.88. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AFMC charges 0.68% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $68 vs $3 annually, a gap of $65 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AFMC currently yields 0.69% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
15.3% of AFMC's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 1.3% of IVV's money is in holdings AFMC also owns.
AFMC and IVV share little of their money.
39 positions in common, counted across the 262 positions we hold weights for in AFMC and 504 in IVV, against full books of 526 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 454 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for AFMC (97.9% of the fund), and 216 for AFMC that do not appear in IVV (79.8%).
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 AFMC | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| CASYCasey's General Stores Inc | 1.33% | 0.05% | 1.28% |
| FIXComfort Systems Usa Inc Common Stock | 0.73% | 0.09% | 0.64% |
| CFCf Industries Ho | 0.74% | 0.03% | 0.71% |
| APAApa Corp | 0.70% | 0.02% | 0.68% |
| HSTHost Hotels & Resorts | 0.66% | 0.02% | 0.64% |
| NTAPNetapp | 0.60% | 0.06% | 0.54% |
| FFIVF5 Inc | 0.61% | 0.03% | 0.58% |
| TPRTapestry Inc | 0.59% | 0.05% | 0.54% |
| LITELumentum Holdings Inc | 0.53% | 0.10% | 0.43% |
| GLGlobe Life Inc. | 0.60% | 0.02% | 0.58% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of AFMC and IVV you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, AFMC or IVV?
AFMC has an expense ratio of 0.68% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $65 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, AFMC or IVV?
Over the past year AFMC returned +20.43% vs +19.36% for IVV, so AFMC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), AFMC annualized +12.06% vs +15.51% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, AFMC or IVV?
AFMC has been the more volatile fund at 20.3% annualized versus 16.9% for IVV. Worst drawdown: AFMC -42.1% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both AFMC and IVV?
AFMC and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.88, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between AFMC and IVV?
15.3% of AFMC's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 1.3% of IVV's is in holdings AFMC also owns. They hold 39 positions in common, counted across the 262 positions we hold weights for in AFMC and 504 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, AFMC or IVV?
AFMC yields 0.69% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than AFMC?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. AFMC led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. AFMC is less concentrated, with 11.7% 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.