FEBZ vs IVV
TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FEBZ | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $30M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.26% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 5 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +9.45% | +13.43% | |
| 1Y Return | +12.23% | +22.61% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +13.78% | +21.47% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.94% | +13.26% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 11.3% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -17.5% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | TrueShares | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jan 29, 2021 | May 15, 2000 |
FEBZ vs IVV Performance
TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) is a ETF from TrueShares and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FEBZ returned +12.23% while IVV returned +22.61%. Year to date, FEBZ is up 9.45% versus a gain of 13.43% for IVV.
Over three years, FEBZ compounded at +13.78% per year against +21.47% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +9.94% and +13.26% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, FEBZ has the edge at +11.51% annualized vs +7.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 11.3% for FEBZ. 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 -17.5% for FEBZ and -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.98. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FEBZ charges 0.79% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $3 annually, a gap of $76 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FEBZ currently yields 2.26% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
FEBZ and IVV share 0 holdings out of 506 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FEBZ or IVV?
FEBZ has an expense ratio of 0.79% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $76 per year of difference.
Which performed better, FEBZ or IVV?
Over the past year FEBZ returned +12.23% vs +22.61% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), FEBZ annualized +11.51% vs +7.03% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, FEBZ or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 11.3% for FEBZ. Worst drawdown: FEBZ -17.5% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both FEBZ and IVV?
FEBZ and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between FEBZ and IVV?
FEBZ and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 506 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, FEBZ or IVV?
FEBZ yields 2.26% while IVV yields 1.09%, so FEBZ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.