EMF vs IVV
Templeton Emerging Markets Fund vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. EMF delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | EMF | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.50% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $6,444.06 | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.49% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 100 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +29.07% | +13.43% | |
| 1Y Return | +57.20% | +22.61% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +32.33% | +21.47% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.10% | +13.26% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 29.3% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -73.7% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Feb 27, 1987 | May 15, 2000 |
EMF vs IVV Performance
Templeton Emerging Markets Fund (EMF) is a ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year EMF returned +57.20% while IVV returned +22.61%. Year to date, EMF is up 29.07% versus a gain of 13.43% for IVV.
Over three years, EMF compounded at +32.33% per year against +21.47% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +12.10% and +13.26% respectively. Across the full 26-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.03% annualized vs +1.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
EMF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 29.3% 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 -73.7% for EMF 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 0.68. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EMF charges 1.50% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $150 vs $3 annually, a gap of $147 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EMF currently yields 6.49% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
EMF and IVV share 1 holdings out of 589 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in EMF | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| CTSH | 0.88% | 0.03% | 0.85% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, EMF or IVV?
EMF has an expense ratio of 1.50% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $147 per year of difference.
Which performed better, EMF or IVV?
Over the past year EMF returned +57.20% vs +22.61% for IVV, so EMF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (26 years), EMF annualized +1.77% vs +7.03% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, EMF or IVV?
EMF has been the more volatile fund at 29.3% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: EMF -73.7% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both EMF and IVV?
EMF and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.68, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between EMF and IVV?
EMF and IVV share 1 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 589 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, EMF or IVV?
EMF yields 6.49% while IVV yields 1.09%, so EMF 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.