EFT vs IVV
Eaton Vance Floating Rate Income Trust 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 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | EFT | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 5.35% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $380M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 7.92% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 501 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +1.70% | +14.29% | |
| 1Y Return | -1.99% | +21.79% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +6.05% | +22.19% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.12% | +13.28% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.1% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -66.4% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Eaton Vance | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jun 29, 2004 | May 15, 2000 |
EFT vs IVV Performance
Eaton Vance Floating Rate Income Trust (EFT) is a ETF from Eaton Vance and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year EFT returned -1.99% while IVV returned +21.79%. Year to date, EFT is up 1.70% versus a gain of 14.29% for IVV.
Over three years, EFT compounded at +6.05% per year against +22.19% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +3.12% and +13.28% respectively. Across the full 22-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.06% annualized vs -0.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 14.1% for EFT. 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 -66.4% for EFT 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 0.60. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EFT charges 5.35% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $535 vs $3 annually, a gap of $532 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EFT currently yields 7.92% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
EFT and IVV share 0 holdings out of 680 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, EFT or IVV?
EFT has an expense ratio of 5.35% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $532 per year of difference.
Which performed better, EFT or IVV?
Over the past year EFT returned -1.99% vs +21.79% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (22 years), EFT annualized -0.56% vs +7.06% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, EFT or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 14.1% for EFT. Worst drawdown: EFT -66.4% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both EFT and IVV?
EFT and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.60, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between EFT and IVV?
EFT and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 680 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, EFT or IVV?
EFT yields 7.92% while IVV yields 1.10%, so EFT 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.