EMB vs IVV
iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond 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 | EMB | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.39% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $14.7B | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 5.02% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 616 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +1.50% | +13.80% | |
| 1Y Return | +6.85% | +23.70% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.79% | +21.49% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +1.75% | +13.43% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 11.3% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -36.4% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Dec 17, 2007 | May 15, 2000 |
EMB vs IVV Performance
iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMB) 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 EMB returned +6.85% while IVV returned +23.70%. Year to date, EMB is up 1.50% versus a gain of 13.80% for IVV.
Over three years, EMB compounded at +8.79% per year against +21.49% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +1.75% and +13.43% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.05% annualized vs +1.12%. 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 11.3% for EMB. 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 -36.4% for EMB 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 0.61. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EMB charges 0.39% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $39 vs $3 annually, a gap of $36 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EMB currently yields 5.02% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
EMB and IVV share 1 holdings out of 755 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 EMB | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| XTSLA | 0.76% | 0.15% | 0.61% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, EMB or IVV?
EMB has an expense ratio of 0.39% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $36 per year of difference.
Which performed better, EMB or IVV?
Over the past year EMB returned +6.85% vs +23.70% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), EMB annualized +1.12% vs +7.05% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, EMB or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 11.3% for EMB. Worst drawdown: EMB -36.4% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both EMB and IVV?
EMB and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.61, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between EMB and IVV?
EMB and IVV share 1 common holdings with a 0.1% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 755 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, EMB or IVV?
EMB yields 5.02% while IVV yields 1.09%, so EMB 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.