CARZ vs IVV
First Trust S-Network Future Vehicles & Technology ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, CARZ or IVV?
Large Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. CARZ led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y, IVV over the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 38.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.7%.
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 | CARZ | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.70% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $49M | $882.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.29% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 104 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +34.11%Best | +14.90% |
| 1Y Return | +44.73%Best | +17.30% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +28.93%Best | +23.04% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +14.39%Best | +13.97% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 24.1% | 14.3%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -51.2% | -33.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $19,586Best | $19,229 |
| Top 10 Weight | 46.7% | 38.1%Best |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 9, 2011 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 10, 2011 to Oct 9, 2026 (15.4 years).
CARZ 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 15.4 years both funds cover.
CARZ vs IVV Performance
First Trust S-Network Future Vehicles & Technology ETF (CARZ) 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 CARZ returned +44.73% while IVV returned +17.30%. Year to date, CARZ is up 34.11% versus a gain of 14.90% for IVV.
Over three years, CARZ compounded at +28.93% per year against +23.04% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +14.39% and +13.97% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +12.58% annualized vs +10.34%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CARZ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 24.1% compared with 14.3% 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 -51.2% for CARZ 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 0.79. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CARZ charges 0.70% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $70 vs $3 annually, a gap of $67 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CARZ currently yields 1.29% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
50.9% of CARZ's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 31.2% of IVV's money is in holdings CARZ also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
22 positions in common, counted across the 99 positions we hold weights for in CARZ and 505 in IVV, against full books of 104 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 475 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for CARZ (68.0% of the fund), and 25 for CARZ that do not appear in IVV (15.4%).
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 CARZ | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 5.01% | 8.00% | 2.99% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.81% | 7.39% | 2.58% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.96% | 5.57% | 0.39% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 4.31% | 3.00% | 1.31% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 4.59% | 1.66% | 2.93% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 4.16% | 1.56% | 2.60% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 4.29% | 1.27% | 3.02% |
| INTCIntel Corporation | 4.15% | 0.77% | 3.38% |
| TXNTexas Instrument Inc | 2.31% | 0.37% | 1.94% |
| MRVLMarvell Technology Group Ltd. | 1.94% | 0.31% | 1.63% |
50.9% of CARZ 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, CARZ or IVV?
CARZ has an expense ratio of 0.70% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $67 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CARZ or IVV?
Over the past year CARZ returned +44.73% vs +17.30% for IVV, so CARZ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), CARZ annualized +10.34% vs +12.58% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CARZ or IVV?
CARZ has been the more volatile fund at 24.1% annualized versus 14.3% for IVV. Worst drawdown: CARZ -51.2% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both CARZ and IVV?
CARZ and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.79, 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 CARZ and IVV?
50.9% of CARZ's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 31.2% of IVV's is in holdings CARZ also owns. They hold 22 positions in common, counted across the 99 positions we hold weights for in CARZ and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, CARZ or IVV?
CARZ yields 1.29% while IVV yields 1.06%, so CARZ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than CARZ?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. CARZ led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y, IVV over the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 38.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.