FBCV vs IVV
Fidelity Blue Chip Value ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, FBCV or IVV?
Large Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FBCV led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FBCV is less concentrated, with 29.7% 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 | FBCV | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.57% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $177M | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.27% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 127 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +20.72%Best | +13.39% |
| 1Y Return | +26.96%Best | +20.08% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.91% | +21.29%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.32% | +12.88%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.5%Best | 15.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -15.6%Best | -24.5% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,341 | $18,327Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 29.7%Best | 37.9% |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 2, 2020 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 4, 2020 to Sep 4, 2026 (6.3 years).
FBCV 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 6.3 years both funds cover.
FBCV vs IVV Performance
Fidelity Blue Chip Value ETF (FBCV) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FBCV returned +26.96% while IVV returned +20.08%. Year to date, FBCV is up 20.72% versus a gain of 13.39% for IVV.
Over three years, FBCV compounded at +16.91% per year against +21.29% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +10.32% and +12.88% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +17.05% annualized vs +14.36%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.5% compared with 13.5% for FBCV. 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 -15.6% for FBCV and -24.5% 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 0.81. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FBCV charges 0.57% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $57 vs $3 annually, a gap of $54 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FBCV currently yields 1.27% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
78.7% of FBCV's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 40.5% of IVV's money is in holdings FBCV also owns.
Most of FBCV is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
79 positions in common, counted across the 125 positions we hold weights for in FBCV and 505 in IVV, against full books of 127 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 418 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for FBCV (58.8% of the fund), and 31 for FBCV that do not appear in IVV (13.0%).
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 FBCV | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 3.96% | 6.86% | 2.90% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 6.51% | 4.01% | 2.50% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 2.74% | 5.44% | 2.70% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 3.32% | 0.94% | 2.38% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc.Class A | 0.97% | 3.19% | 2.22% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 2.68% | 0.72% | 1.96% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 2.59% | 0.62% | 1.97% |
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 2.38% | 0.48% | 1.90% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 0.00% | 2.56% | 2.56% |
| TRVThe Travelers Cos, Inc. | 1.95% | 0.12% | 1.83% |
78.7% of FBCV 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, FBCV or IVV?
FBCV has an expense ratio of 0.57% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $54 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FBCV or IVV?
Over the past year FBCV returned +26.96% vs +20.08% for IVV, so FBCV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), FBCV annualized +14.36% vs +17.05% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FBCV or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.5% annualized versus 13.5% for FBCV. Worst drawdown: FBCV -15.6% vs IVV -24.5%.
Should I hold both FBCV and IVV?
FBCV and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.81, 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 FBCV and IVV?
78.7% of FBCV's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 40.5% of IVV's is in holdings FBCV also owns. They hold 79 positions in common, counted across the 125 positions we hold weights for in FBCV and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FBCV or IVV?
FBCV yields 1.27% while IVV yields 1.10%, so FBCV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than FBCV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FBCV led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FBCV is less concentrated, with 29.7% 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.