FAD vs IVV
First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, FAD or IVV?
Mid Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FAD led over 3Y and the full window, IVV over 1Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. FAD is less concentrated, with 4.8% 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 | FAD | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.63% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $584M | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.10% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 677 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +12.61% | +12.70%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.64% | +19.36%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.27%Best | +21.16% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.78% | +12.75%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.6% | 15.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -54.5%Best | -56.5% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,232 | $18,221Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 4.8%Best | 37.9% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 8, 2007 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 10, 2007 to Sep 8, 2026 (19.3 years).
FAD 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 19.3 years both funds cover.
FAD vs IVV Performance
First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD) 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 FAD returned +17.64% while IVV returned +19.36%. Year to date, FAD is up 12.61% versus a gain of 12.70% for IVV.
Over three years, FAD compounded at +21.27% per year against +21.16% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +8.78% and +12.75% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, FAD has the edge at +9.99% annualized vs +9.27%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FAD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.6% 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 -54.5% for FAD 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 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FAD charges 0.63% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $63 vs $3 annually, a gap of $60 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FAD currently yields 0.10% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
37.0% of FAD's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 56.6% of IVV's money is in holdings FAD also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
152 positions in common, counted across the 668 positions we hold weights for in FAD and 504 in IVV, against full books of 677 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 341 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for FAD (42.6% of the fund), and 505 for FAD that do not appear in IVV (60.5%).
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 FAD | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 0.30% | 7.98% | 7.68% |
| AAPLApple Inc Ord | 0.29% | 6.86% | 6.57% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.31% | 4.01% | 3.70% |
| GOOGL Alphabet Inc. Class A | 0.38% | 3.19% | 2.81% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.30% | 2.98% | 2.68% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 0.09% | 1.94% | 1.85% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 0.36% | 1.51% | 1.15% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 0.36% | 1.39% | 1.03% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase & Co. | 0.20% | 1.45% | 1.25% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 0.39% | 1.18% | 0.79% |
56.6% of IVV is already inside FAD.
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, FAD or IVV?
FAD has an expense ratio of 0.63% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $60 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FAD or IVV?
Over the past year FAD returned +17.64% vs +19.36% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), FAD annualized +9.99% vs +9.27% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FAD or IVV?
FAD has been the more volatile fund at 18.6% annualized versus 15.6% for IVV. Worst drawdown: FAD -54.5% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both FAD and IVV?
FAD and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, 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 FAD and IVV?
56.6% of IVV's money is in holdings FAD also owns. 56.6% of IVV's is in holdings FAD also owns. They hold 152 positions in common, counted across the 668 positions we hold weights for in FAD and 504 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FAD or IVV?
FAD yields 0.10% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than FAD?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FAD led over 3Y and the full window, IVV over 1Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. FAD is less concentrated, with 4.8% 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.