CLCG vs IVV
Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, CLCG or IVV?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 58.6%.
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 | CLCG | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $29M | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.06% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 34 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +7.64% | +12.39%Best |
| 1Y Return | +8.66% | +16.61%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +21.38% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.51% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.0% | 12.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -16.3% | -8.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.2 years | $11,593 | $12,274Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 58.6% | 37.8%Best |
| Fund Family | Crossmark Global Investment | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 23, 2025 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 23, 2025 to Sep 18, 2026 (1.2 years).
CLCG 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 1.2 years both funds cover.
CLCG vs IVV Performance
Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF (CLCG) is an ETF from Crossmark Global Investment and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year CLCG returned +8.66% while IVV returned +16.61%. Year to date, CLCG is up 7.64% versus a gain of 12.39% for IVV.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CLCG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.0% compared with 12.4% 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 -16.3% for CLCG and -8.9% 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 0.94. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CLCG 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, CLCG currently yields 0.06% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
95.0% of CLCG's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 40.6% of IVV's money is in holdings CLCG also owns.
Most of CLCG is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
31 positions in common, counted across the 34 positions we hold weights for in CLCG and 490 in IVV, against full books of 34 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 451 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for CLCG (58.0% of the fund), and 1 for CLCG that do not appear in IVV (1.9%).
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 CLCG | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 17.74% | 8.07% | 9.67% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 9.72% | 7.02% | 2.70% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 8.69% | 3.00% | 5.69% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 3.49% | 5.69% | 2.20% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.16% | 2.65% | 0.51% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 3.52% | 1.38% | 2.14% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 3.67% | 0.95% | 2.72% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 3.26% | 0.72% | 2.54% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.22% | 1.63% | 0.59% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.58% | 1.90% | 0.32% |
95.0% of CLCG 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, CLCG or IVV?
CLCG has an expense ratio of 0.50% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $47 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CLCG or IVV?
Over the past year CLCG returned +8.66% vs +16.61% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), CLCG annualized +13.11% vs +18.62% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CLCG or IVV?
CLCG has been the more volatile fund at 17.0% annualized versus 12.4% for IVV. Worst drawdown: CLCG -16.3% vs IVV -8.9%.
Should I hold both CLCG and IVV?
CLCG and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CLCG and IVV?
95.0% of CLCG's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 40.6% of IVV's is in holdings CLCG also owns. They hold 31 positions in common, counted across the 34 positions we hold weights for in CLCG and 490 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, CLCG or IVV?
CLCG yields 0.06% while IVV yields 1.06%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than CLCG?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 58.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.