COWS vs IVV
Amplify Cash Flow Dividend Leaders ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, COWS or IVV?
Each has led over a different period.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. COWS led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y and the full window. COWS is less concentrated, with 32.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%.
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 | COWS | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.19% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $44M | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.53% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 42 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +20.62%Best | +13.39% |
| 1Y Return | +26.60%Best | +20.08% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.57% | +21.29%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.88% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.7% | 12.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -24.8% | -18.8%Best |
| $10,000 over 3 years | $17,095 | $18,034Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 32.8%Best | 37.9% |
| Fund Family | Amplify ETFs | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 13, 2023 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 13, 2023 to Sep 4, 2026 (3 years).
COWS 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 3 years both funds cover.
COWS vs IVV Performance
Amplify Cash Flow Dividend Leaders ETF (COWS) is an ETF from Amplify ETFs and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year COWS returned +26.60% while IVV returned +20.08%. Year to date, COWS is up 20.62% versus a gain of 13.39% for IVV.
Over three years, COWS compounded at +19.57% per year against +21.29% for IVV.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
COWS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.7% 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 -24.8% for COWS 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 0.73. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
COWS charges 0.19% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $19 vs $3 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, COWS currently yields 1.53% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
58.4% of COWS's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 1.9% of IVV's money is in holdings COWS also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
24 positions in common, counted across the 41 positions we hold weights for in COWS and 505 in IVV, against full books of 42 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Measured across the 41 and 505 positions we hold weights for.
IVV holds 473 positions COWS does not, 97.5% of the fund.
Largest: NVDA 7.98%, AAPL 6.86%, MSFT 5.44%, AMZN 4.01%, GOOGL 3.19%
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in COWS | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| BKNGBooking Holdings, Inc. | 3.54% | 0.24% | 3.30% |
| WSMWilliams-sonoma Inc | 3.23% | 0.04% | 3.19% |
| ROPRoper Technologies Inc. | 3.19% | 0.06% | 3.13% |
| INTUIntuit, Inc. | 3.04% | 0.14% | 2.90% |
| CORCencora Inc | 3.02% | 0.09% | 2.93% |
| MCKMckesson Corp. | 2.92% | 0.16% | 2.76% |
| HASHasbro Inc. | 3.02% | 0.02% | 3.00% |
| AVYAvery Dennison Corp. | 3.01% | 0.02% | 2.99% |
| FDXFedex Corp | 2.65% | 0.10% | 2.55% |
| EQTEQT Corp. | 2.61% | 0.05% | 2.56% |
58.4% of COWS 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, COWS or IVV?
COWS has an expense ratio of 0.19% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $16 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, COWS or IVV?
Over the past year COWS returned +26.60% vs +20.08% for IVV, so COWS leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, COWS or IVV?
COWS has been the more volatile fund at 15.7% annualized versus 12.4% for IVV. Worst drawdown: COWS -24.8% vs IVV -18.8%.
Should I hold both COWS and IVV?
COWS and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.73, 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 COWS and IVV?
58.4% of COWS's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 1.9% of IVV's is in holdings COWS also owns. They hold 24 positions in common, counted across the 41 positions we hold weights for in COWS and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, COWS or IVV?
COWS yields 1.53% while IVV yields 1.10%, so COWS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than COWS?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. COWS led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y and the full window. COWS is less concentrated, with 32.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.