EDEN vs IVV
iShares MSCI Denmark 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 | EDEN | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.53% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $201M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 3.12% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 46 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | -0.17% | +14.50% | |
| 1Y Return | +8.61% | +22.02% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +4.28% | +21.80% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +1.54% | +13.37% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 629.5% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -36.6% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jan 25, 2012 | May 15, 2000 |
EDEN vs IVV Performance
iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year EDEN returned +8.61% while IVV returned +22.02%. Year to date, EDEN is down 0.17% versus a gain of 14.50% for IVV.
Over three years, EDEN compounded at +4.28% per year against +21.80% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +1.54% and +13.37% respectively. Across the full 18-year window we track, EDEN has the edge at +33.99% annualized vs +7.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
EDEN has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 629.5% 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 -36.6% for EDEN 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 0.08. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EDEN charges 0.53% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $53 vs $3 annually, a gap of $50 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EDEN currently yields 3.12% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
EDEN and IVV share 1 holdings out of 545 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.1% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in EDEN | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| XTSLA | 0.05% | 0.15% | 0.10% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, EDEN or IVV?
EDEN has an expense ratio of 0.53% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $50 per year of difference.
Which performed better, EDEN or IVV?
Over the past year EDEN returned +8.61% vs +22.02% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (18 years), EDEN annualized +33.99% vs +7.07% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, EDEN or IVV?
EDEN has been the more volatile fund at 629.5% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: EDEN -36.6% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both EDEN and IVV?
EDEN and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.08, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between EDEN and IVV?
EDEN and IVV share 1 common holdings with a 0.1% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 545 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, EDEN or IVV?
EDEN yields 3.12% while IVV yields 1.09%, so EDEN 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.