EQWL vs IVV
Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, EQWL or IVV?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. EQWL led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. EQWL is less concentrated, with 12.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%.
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 | EQWL | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.25% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $2.9B | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.52% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 104 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +12.50%Best | +11.51% |
| 1Y Return | +18.33%Best | +15.96% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.26% | +21.01%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.94% | +12.66%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.0%Best | 15.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -50.0%Best | -56.5% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,576 | $18,149Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 12.3%Best | 37.8% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 1, 2006 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 1, 2006 to Sep 15, 2026 (19.8 years).
EQWL 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 19.8 years both funds cover.
EQWL vs IVV Performance
Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF (EQWL) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year EQWL returned +18.33% while IVV returned +15.96%. Year to date, EQWL is up 12.50% versus a gain of 11.51% for IVV.
Over three years, EQWL compounded at +19.26% per year against +21.01% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +11.94% and +12.66% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +9.34% annualized vs +9.32%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.4% compared with 15.0% for EQWL. 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 -50.0% for EQWL and -56.5% 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 0.96. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EQWL charges 0.25% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $25 vs $3 annually, a gap of $22 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EQWL currently yields 1.52% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
97.1% of EQWL's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 70.9% of IVV's money is in holdings EQWL also owns.
Most of EQWL is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
98 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in EQWL and 490 in IVV, against full books of 104 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 384 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for EQWL (27.7% of the fund), and 3 for EQWL that do not appear in IVV (1.9%).
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 EQWL | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 1.03% | 8.07% | 7.04% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 1.02% | 7.02% | 6.00% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 1.20% | 5.69% | 4.49% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 1.02% | 3.84% | 2.82% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.93% | 2.65% | 1.72% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 0.50% | 3.00% | 2.50% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 0.94% | 1.90% | 0.96% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 0.40% | 2.39% | 1.99% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.01% | 1.63% | 0.62% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.08% | 1.44% | 0.36% |
97.1% of EQWL 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, EQWL or IVV?
EQWL has an expense ratio of 0.25% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $22 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, EQWL or IVV?
Over the past year EQWL returned +18.33% vs +15.96% for IVV, so EQWL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), EQWL annualized +9.32% vs +9.34% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, EQWL or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.4% annualized versus 15.0% for EQWL. Worst drawdown: EQWL -50.0% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both EQWL and IVV?
EQWL and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, 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 EQWL and IVV?
97.1% of EQWL's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 70.9% of IVV's is in holdings EQWL also owns. They hold 98 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in EQWL and 490 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, EQWL or IVV?
EQWL yields 1.52% while IVV yields 1.06%, so EQWL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than EQWL?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. EQWL led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. EQWL is less concentrated, with 12.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.