ASMF vs IVV
Virtus AlphaSimplex Managed Futures ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, ASMF or IVV?
Option Writing against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. ASMF led over 1Y, IVV over the full window.
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 | ASMF | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.80% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $30M | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.20% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 22 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +11.27% | +12.39%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.87%Best | +16.61% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +21.38% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.51% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 8.5%Best | 11.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -15.3%Best | -18.8% |
| $10,000 over 2.3 years | $10,905 | $14,756Best |
| Fund Family | Virtus Investment Partners | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Option Writing | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2024 | May 15, 2000 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: May 16, 2024 to Sep 18, 2026 (2.3 years).
ASMF 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 2.3 years both funds cover.
ASMF vs IVV Performance
Virtus AlphaSimplex Managed Futures ETF (ASMF) is an ETF from Virtus Investment Partners and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year ASMF returned +16.87% while IVV returned +16.61%. Year to date, ASMF is up 11.27% versus a gain of 12.39% for IVV.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 11.8% compared with 8.5% for ASMF. 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 -15.3% for ASMF and -18.8% 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 0.31. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ASMF charges 0.80% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $80 vs $3 annually, a gap of $77 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ASMF currently yields 0.20% against 1.06% for IVV.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of ASMF 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, ASMF or IVV?
ASMF has an expense ratio of 0.80% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $77 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ASMF or IVV?
Over the past year ASMF returned +16.87% vs +16.61% for IVV, so ASMF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), ASMF annualized +3.84% vs +18.43% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ASMF or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 11.8% annualized versus 8.5% for ASMF. Worst drawdown: ASMF -15.3% vs IVV -18.8%.
Should I hold both ASMF and IVV?
ASMF and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.31, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, ASMF or IVV?
ASMF yields 0.20% while IVV yields 1.06%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than ASMF?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. ASMF led over 1Y, IVV over the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.