FLQL vs IVV
Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, FLQL or IVV?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FLQL led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, IVV over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.3%.
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 | FLQL | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $2.1B | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.04% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 220 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +13.45% | +13.86%Best |
| 1Y Return | +19.97% | +21.57%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.55%Best | +21.48% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.39%Best | +12.88% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.0%Best | 15.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.6%Best | -33.9% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,744Best | $18,327 |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.3% | 37.9%Best |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 26, 2017 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 28, 2017 to Sep 3, 2026 (9.3 years).
FLQL 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 9.3 years both funds cover.
FLQL vs IVV Performance
Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLQL) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FLQL returned +19.97% while IVV returned +21.57%. Year to date, FLQL is up 13.45% versus a gain of 13.86% for IVV.
Over three years, FLQL compounded at +21.55% per year against +21.48% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +13.39% and +12.88% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, FLQL has the edge at +14.68% annualized vs +14.35%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.8% compared with 15.0% for FLQL. 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 -33.6% for FLQL and -33.9% 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 0.98. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FLQL charges 0.15% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $3 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FLQL currently yields 1.04% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
88.9% of FLQL's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 59.5% of IVV's money is in holdings FLQL also owns.
Most of FLQL is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
117 positions in common, counted across the 215 positions we hold weights for in FLQL and 505 in IVV, against full books of 220 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 380 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for FLQL (39.8% of the fund), and 93 for FLQL that do not appear in IVV (10.1%).
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 FLQL | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.04% | 7.98% | 0.94% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.27% | 6.86% | 0.41% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 4.99% | 5.44% | 0.45% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.53% | 4.01% | 0.48% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc.Class A | 3.94% | 3.19% | 0.75% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 3.18% | 2.56% | 0.62% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.71% | 2.98% | 0.27% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 1.88% | 1.94% | 0.06% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 1.91% | 0.94% | 0.97% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 1.85% | 0.93% | 0.92% |
88.9% of FLQL 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, FLQL or IVV?
FLQL has an expense ratio of 0.15% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $12 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FLQL or IVV?
Over the past year FLQL returned +19.97% vs +21.57% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), FLQL annualized +14.68% vs +14.35% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FLQL or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.8% annualized versus 15.0% for FLQL. Worst drawdown: FLQL -33.6% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both FLQL and IVV?
FLQL and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, 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 FLQL and IVV?
88.9% of FLQL's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 59.5% of IVV's is in holdings FLQL also owns. They hold 117 positions in common, counted across the 215 positions we hold weights for in FLQL and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FLQL or IVV?
FLQL yields 1.04% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than FLQL?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FLQL led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, IVV over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.