CGRO vs IVV
CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth 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 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGRO | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.89% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $2M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 3.69% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 33 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | -18.18% | +13.72% | |
| 1Y Return | -15.40% | +21.64% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +5.58% | +21.55% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +5.58% | +13.27% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 62.6% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -42.1% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | CORE VALUES ALPHA | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Oct 16, 2023 | May 15, 2000 |
CGRO vs IVV Performance
CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) is a ETF from CORE VALUES ALPHA and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year CGRO returned -15.40% while IVV returned +21.64%. Year to date, CGRO is down 18.18% versus a gain of 13.72% for IVV.
Over three years, CGRO compounded at +5.58% per year against +21.55% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +5.58% and +13.27% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, CGRO has the edge at +15.29% annualized vs +7.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CGRO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 62.6% 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 -42.1% for CGRO 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 -0.10. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGRO charges 0.89% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $89 vs $3 annually, a gap of $86 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGRO currently yields 3.69% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
CGRO and IVV share 1 holdings out of 535 unique holdings combined, representing a 1.6% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in CGRO | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| TSLA | 3.94% | 1.65% | 2.29% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGRO or IVV?
CGRO has an expense ratio of 0.89% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $86 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGRO or IVV?
Over the past year CGRO returned -15.40% vs +21.64% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), CGRO annualized +15.29% vs +7.04% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGRO or IVV?
CGRO has been the more volatile fund at 62.6% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: CGRO -42.1% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both CGRO and IVV?
CGRO and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of -0.10, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGRO and IVV?
CGRO and IVV share 1 common holdings with a 1.6% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 535 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGRO or IVV?
CGRO yields 3.69% while IVV yields 1.09%, so CGRO 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.