FLC vs IVV
Flaherty & Crumrine Total Return Fund 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 | FLC | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.64% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $193M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.71% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 257 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | -0.15% | +13.80% | |
| 1Y Return | +5.64% | +23.01% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +12.73% | +21.77% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -0.04% | +13.39% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.3% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -83.0% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Flaherty & Crumrine | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Allocation/Balanced | Equity | |
| Inception | Aug 29, 2003 | May 15, 2000 |
FLC vs IVV Performance
Flaherty & Crumrine Total Return Fund (FLC) is a ETF from Flaherty & Crumrine and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FLC returned +5.64% while IVV returned +23.01%. Year to date, FLC is down 0.15% versus a gain of 13.80% for IVV.
Over three years, FLC compounded at +12.73% per year against +21.77% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are -0.04% and +13.39% respectively. Across the full 23-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.04% annualized vs -0.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FLC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.3% compared with 15.1% 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 -83.0% for FLC 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 0.44. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FLC charges 1.64% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $164 vs $3 annually, a gap of $161 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FLC currently yields 6.71% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
FLC and IVV share 10 holdings out of 679 unique holdings combined, representing a 1.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FLC or IVV?
FLC has an expense ratio of 1.64% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $161 per year of difference.
Which performed better, FLC or IVV?
Over the past year FLC returned +5.64% vs +23.01% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (23 years), FLC annualized -0.02% vs +7.04% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, FLC or IVV?
FLC has been the more volatile fund at 19.3% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: FLC -83.0% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both FLC and IVV?
FLC and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.44, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between FLC and IVV?
FLC and IVV share 10 common holdings with a 1.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 679 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, FLC or IVV?
FLC yields 6.71% while IVV yields 1.09%, so FLC 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.