CZA vs IVV
Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap 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 | CZA | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.69% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $189M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.41% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 104 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +13.95% | +13.43% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.98% | +22.61% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +13.76% | +21.47% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.41% | +13.26% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.6% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -53.2% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Apr 2, 2007 | May 15, 2000 |
CZA vs IVV Performance
Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year CZA returned +21.98% while IVV returned +22.61%. Year to date, CZA is up 13.95% versus a gain of 13.43% for IVV.
Over three years, CZA compounded at +13.76% per year against +21.47% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +7.41% and +13.26% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, CZA has the edge at +9.76% annualized vs +7.03%. 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 15.1% 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 -53.2% for CZA 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 0.89. 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 1.41% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
CZA and IVV share 48 holdings out of 559 unique holdings combined, representing a 2.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
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. On a $10,000 investment, that is $66 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CZA or IVV?
Over the past year CZA returned +21.98% vs +22.61% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), CZA annualized +9.76% vs +7.03% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CZA or IVV?
CZA has been the more volatile fund at 16.6% annualized versus 15.1% 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 combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CZA and IVV?
CZA and IVV share 48 common holdings with a 2.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 559 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CZA or IVV?
CZA yields 1.41% while IVV yields 1.09%, so CZA 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.