CZA vs IVV
Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, CZA or IVV?
Mid Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. CZA is less concentrated, with 19.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%.
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 | CZA | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.69% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $180M | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.38% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 103 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +8.24% | +14.14%Best |
| 1Y Return | +12.41% | +17.30%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +12.94% | +23.04%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.07% | +13.63%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.6% | 15.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -53.2%Best | -56.5% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,071 | $18,944Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 19.7%Best | 37.8% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 2, 2007 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 3, 2007 to Sep 22, 2026 (19.5 years).
CZA 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 19.5 years both funds cover.
CZA vs IVV Performance
Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year CZA returned +12.41% while IVV returned +17.30%. Year to date, CZA is up 8.24% versus a gain of 14.14% for IVV.
Over three years, CZA compounded at +12.94% per year against +23.04% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +7.07% and +13.63% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +9.49% annualized vs +9.41%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CZA has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.6% compared with 15.5% 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 -53.2% for CZA and -56.5% 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 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CZA charges 0.69% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $69 vs $3 annually, a gap of $66 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CZA currently yields 1.38% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
49.7% of CZA's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 1.6% of IVV's money is in holdings CZA also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
39 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in CZA and 490 in IVV, against full books of 103 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 443 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for CZA (97.1% of the fund), and 53 for CZA that do not appear in IVV (38.7%).
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 CZA | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| BDXBecton Dickinson And Co. | 2.45% | 0.08% | 2.37% |
| PRUPrudential Financial Inc | 2.04% | 0.06% | 1.98% |
| AIGAmerican International Gr | 1.99% | 0.06% | 1.93% |
| SYYSysco Corp | 1.87% | 0.06% | 1.81% |
| HIGHartford Financial Services Group Inc. | 1.84% | 0.06% | 1.78% |
| PEGPublic Svc Ent Group | 1.75% | 0.06% | 1.69% |
| NTRSNorthern Trust Corp. | 1.67% | 0.05% | 1.62% |
| ACGLArch Capital Group Ltd 5.450% | 1.64% | 0.05% | 1.59% |
| ZTSZoetis Inc, Class A | 1.63% | 0.05% | 1.58% |
| HBANHuntington Bancshares Inc./Oh | 1.58% | 0.05% | 1.53% |
49.7% of CZA 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, CZA or IVV?
CZA has an expense ratio of 0.69% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $66 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CZA or IVV?
Over the past year CZA returned +12.41% vs +17.30% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), CZA annualized +9.41% vs +9.49% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CZA or IVV?
CZA has been the more volatile fund at 16.6% annualized versus 15.5% for IVV. Worst drawdown: CZA -53.2% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both CZA and IVV?
CZA and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, 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 CZA and IVV?
49.7% of CZA's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 1.6% of IVV's is in holdings CZA also owns. They hold 39 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in CZA and 490 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, CZA or IVV?
CZA yields 1.38% while IVV yields 1.06%, so CZA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than CZA?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. CZA is less concentrated, with 19.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.