EQL vs IVV
ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, EQL or IVV?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. EQL is less concentrated, with 23.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | EQL | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.19% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $768M | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.36% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 12 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +11.96% | +13.39%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.40% | +20.08%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.15% | +21.29%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.58% | +12.88%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.6%Best | 14.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -36.4% | -33.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,534 | $18,327Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 23.0%Best | 37.9% |
| Fund Family | ALPS Advisors | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 6, 2009 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 7, 2009 to Sep 4, 2026 (17.2 years).
EQL vs IVV growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 17.2 years both funds cover.
EQL vs IVV Performance
ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF (EQL) is an ETF from ALPS Advisors and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year EQL returned +16.40% while IVV returned +20.08%. Year to date, EQL is up 11.96% versus a gain of 13.39% for IVV.
Over three years, EQL compounded at +16.15% per year against +21.29% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +10.58% and +12.88% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +13.99% annualized vs +12.03%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.3% compared with 13.6% for EQL. 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 EQL and -33.9% for IVV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.97. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EQL charges 0.19% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $19 vs $3 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EQL currently yields 1.36% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
95.2% of EQL's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 94.5% of IVV's money is in holdings EQL also owns.
Most of EQL is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
417 positions in common, counted across the 497 positions we hold weights for in EQL and 505 in IVV, against full books of 12 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 82 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for EQL (5.0% of the fund), and 72 for EQL that do not appear in IVV (3.8%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in EQL | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 1.91% | 7.98% | 6.07% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 1.64% | 6.86% | 5.22% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc.Class A | 4.92% | 3.19% | 1.73% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.67% | 4.01% | 0.34% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 1.33% | 5.44% | 4.11% |
| XOMExxonmobil Holdings Corp Common Stock Usd | 2.75% | 0.94% | 1.81% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.67% | 2.98% | 2.31% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 1.69% | 1.94% | 0.25% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.52% | 1.39% | 0.13% |
| TSLATesla Motors Inc | 1.42% | 1.36% | 0.06% |
95.2% of EQL is already inside IVV.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, EQL or IVV?
EQL has an expense ratio of 0.19% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $16 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, EQL or IVV?
Over the past year EQL returned +16.40% vs +20.08% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), EQL annualized +12.03% vs +13.99% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, EQL or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 14.3% annualized versus 13.6% for EQL. Worst drawdown: EQL -36.4% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both EQL and IVV?
EQL and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between EQL and IVV?
95.2% of EQL's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 94.5% of IVV's is in holdings EQL also owns. They hold 417 positions in common, counted across the 497 positions we hold weights for in EQL and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, EQL or IVV?
EQL yields 1.36% while IVV yields 1.10%, so EQL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than EQL?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. EQL is less concentrated, with 23.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.