ESML vs IVV
iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA Small-Cap ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, ESML or IVV?
Small Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ESML is less concentrated, with 4.5% 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 | ESML | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.17% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $2.8B | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.91% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 913 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +14.07%Best | +12.39% |
| 1Y Return | +16.60% | +16.61%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.53% | +21.38%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.65% | +13.51%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.3% | 16.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -42.0% | -33.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,457 | $18,844Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 4.5%Best | 37.8% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 10, 2018 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 12, 2018 to Sep 18, 2026 (8.4 years).
ESML 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 8.4 years both funds cover.
ESML vs IVV Performance
iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA Small-Cap ETF (ESML) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year ESML returned +16.60% while IVV returned +16.61%. Year to date, ESML is up 14.07% versus a gain of 12.39% for IVV.
Over three years, ESML compounded at +16.53% per year against +21.38% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +7.65% and +13.51% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +14.32% annualized vs +9.80%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ESML has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.3% compared with 16.5% 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 -42.0% for ESML 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 0.88. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ESML charges 0.17% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $17 vs $3 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ESML currently yields 0.91% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
10.4% of ESML's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 1.1% of IVV's money is in holdings ESML also owns.
ESML and IVV share little of their money.
50 positions in common, counted across the 854 positions we hold weights for in ESML and 490 in IVV, against full books of 913 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 433 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for ESML (97.5% of the fund), and 785 for ESML that do not appear in IVV (83.4%).
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 ESML | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRNAModerna therapeutics | 0.74% | 0.07% | 0.67% |
| AIZAssurant, Inc. | 0.62% | 0.02% | 0.60% |
| TRMBTrimble Inc. | 0.33% | 0.02% | 0.31% |
| IVZInvesco Plc | 0.32% | 0.02% | 0.30% |
| CLXClorox Co. | 0.32% | 0.02% | 0.30% |
| FDSFactset Research Systems Inc. | 0.31% | 0.02% | 0.29% |
| RVTYRevvity Inc | 0.30% | 0.02% | 0.28% |
| DOCHealthpeak Properties Inc | 0.29% | 0.02% | 0.27% |
| AKAMAkamai Technologies Inc. | 0.29% | 0.02% | 0.27% |
| XTSLABlackrock Cash Funds: Treasury, Sl Agency Shares | 0.14% | 0.15% | 0.01% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of ESML and IVV you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ESML or IVV?
ESML has an expense ratio of 0.17% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $14 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ESML or IVV?
Over the past year ESML returned +16.60% vs +16.61% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), ESML annualized +9.80% vs +14.32% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ESML or IVV?
ESML has been the more volatile fund at 21.3% annualized versus 16.5% for IVV. Worst drawdown: ESML -42.0% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both ESML and IVV?
ESML and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.88, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between ESML and IVV?
10.4% of ESML's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 1.1% of IVV's is in holdings ESML also owns. They hold 50 positions in common, counted across the 854 positions we hold weights for in ESML and 490 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, ESML or IVV?
ESML yields 0.91% while IVV yields 1.06%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than ESML?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ESML is less concentrated, with 4.5% 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.