DMAT vs IVV
Global X Disruptive Materials ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. DMAT delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | DMAT | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.59% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $12M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.90% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 54 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +28.89% | +12.96% | |
| 1Y Return | +155.65% | +20.70% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +23.73% | +22.10% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.40% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 31.8% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -53.7% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Global X by mirae Asset | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jan 24, 2022 | May 15, 2000 |
DMAT vs IVV Performance
Global X Disruptive Materials ETF (DMAT) is a ETF from Global X by mirae Asset and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year DMAT returned +155.65% while IVV returned +20.70%. Year to date, DMAT is up 28.89% versus a gain of 12.96% for IVV.
Over three years, DMAT compounded at +23.73% per year against +22.10% for IVV. Across the full 4-year window we track, DMAT has the edge at +12.91% annualized vs +7.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
DMAT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 31.8% 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 -53.7% for DMAT 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 0.44. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
DMAT charges 0.59% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $59 vs $3 annually, a gap of $56 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, DMAT currently yields 0.90% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, DMAT or IVV?
DMAT has an expense ratio of 0.59% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $56 per year of difference.
Which performed better, DMAT or IVV?
Over the past year DMAT returned +155.65% vs +20.70% for IVV, so DMAT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), DMAT annualized +12.91% vs +7.01% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, DMAT or IVV?
DMAT has been the more volatile fund at 31.8% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: DMAT -53.7% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both DMAT and IVV?
DMAT and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.44, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between DMAT and IVV?
DMAT and IVV share 2 common holdings with a 0.2% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 551 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, DMAT or IVV?
DMAT yields 0.90% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IVV 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.