AGNG vs IVV
Global X Aging Population ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AGNG | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $94M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.88% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 84 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +7.94% | +12.28% | |
| 1Y Return | +17.35% | +20.94% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +13.75% | +21.81% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +5.71% | +13.05% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.2% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -30.6% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Global X by mirae Asset | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 9, 2016 | May 15, 2000 |
AGNG vs IVV Performance
Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) is a ETF from Global X by mirae Asset and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year AGNG returned +17.35% while IVV returned +20.94%. Year to date, AGNG is up 7.94% versus a gain of 12.28% for IVV.
Over three years, AGNG compounded at +13.75% per year against +21.81% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +5.71% and +13.05% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, AGNG has the edge at +9.87% annualized vs +6.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
AGNG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.2% compared with 15.1% 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 -30.6% for AGNG and -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.72. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AGNG charges 0.50% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $3 annually, a gap of $47 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AGNG currently yields 0.88% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
AGNG and IVV share 12 holdings out of 564 unique holdings combined, representing a 2.1% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, AGNG or IVV?
AGNG has an expense ratio of 0.50% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $47 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AGNG or IVV?
Over the past year AGNG returned +17.35% vs +20.94% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), AGNG annualized +9.87% vs +6.98% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AGNG or IVV?
AGNG has been the more volatile fund at 15.2% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: AGNG -30.6% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both AGNG and IVV?
AGNG and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.72, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AGNG and IVV?
AGNG and IVV share 12 common holdings with a 2.1% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 564 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AGNG or IVV?
AGNG yields 0.88% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.