FAB vs IVV
First Trust Multi Cap Value AlphaDEX Fund vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, FAB or IVV?
Mid Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FAB led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FAB is less concentrated, with 5.5% 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 | FAB | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.66% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $191M | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.51% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 1,350 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +16.15%Best | +11.03% |
| 1Y Return | +20.79%Best | +15.62% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.24% | +20.81%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.90% | +12.61%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.5% | 15.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -64.3% | -56.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,032 | $18,109Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 5.5%Best | 37.8% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 8, 2007 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 11, 2007 to Sep 16, 2026 (19.4 years).
FAB 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 19.4 years both funds cover.
FAB vs IVV Performance
First Trust Multi Cap Value AlphaDEX Fund (FAB) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FAB returned +20.79% while IVV returned +15.62%. Year to date, FAB is up 16.15% versus a gain of 11.03% for IVV.
Over three years, FAB compounded at +15.24% per year against +20.81% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +9.90% and +12.61% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +9.12% annualized vs +7.16%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FAB has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.5% compared with 15.6% 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 -64.3% for FAB 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 0.87. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FAB charges 0.66% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $66 vs $3 annually, a gap of $63 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FAB currently yields 1.51% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
47.7% of FAB's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 18.5% of IVV's money is in holdings FAB also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
189 positions in common, counted across the 657 positions we hold weights for in FAB and 490 in IVV, against full books of 1,350 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 294 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for FAB (80.3% of the fund), and 450 for FAB that do not appear in IVV (47.6%).
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 FAB | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRK.BBerkshire Hathaway Inc Brk/B Us Equity | 0.43% | 1.39% | 0.96% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 0.40% | 1.01% | 0.61% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 0.42% | 0.58% | 0.16% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 0.27% | 0.61% | 0.34% |
| ACN:IEAccenture PLC Cl A | 0.65% | 0.18% | 0.47% |
| VZVerizon Communic | 0.50% | 0.32% | 0.18% |
| TBBAt&t Inc | 0.53% | 0.27% | 0.26% |
| COPConocophillips Common Stock USD 0.01 | 0.54% | 0.24% | 0.30% |
| WFCWells Fargo & Co. | 0.36% | 0.40% | 0.04% |
| CTSHCognizant Technology Solutions Corp. Class A | 0.71% | 0.05% | 0.66% |
47.7% of FAB 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, FAB or IVV?
FAB has an expense ratio of 0.66% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $63 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FAB or IVV?
Over the past year FAB returned +20.79% vs +15.62% for IVV, so FAB leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), FAB annualized +7.16% vs +9.12% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FAB or IVV?
FAB has been the more volatile fund at 20.5% annualized versus 15.6% for IVV. Worst drawdown: FAB -64.3% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both FAB and IVV?
FAB and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.87, 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 FAB and IVV?
47.7% of FAB's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 18.5% of IVV's is in holdings FAB also owns. They hold 189 positions in common, counted across the 657 positions we hold weights for in FAB and 490 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FAB or IVV?
FAB yields 1.51% while IVV yields 1.06%, so FAB currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than FAB?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FAB led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FAB is less concentrated, with 5.5% 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.