FLV vs IVV
American Century Focused Large Cap Value ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, FLV or IVV?
Large Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FLV is less concentrated, with 32.6% 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 | FLV | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.42% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $384M | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.51% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 56 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +15.77%Best | +13.86% |
| 1Y Return | +20.29% | +21.57%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.73% | +21.48%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.00% | +12.88%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.2%Best | 15.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -15.1%Best | -24.5% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,105 | $18,327Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 32.6%Best | 37.9% |
| Fund Family | American Century ETFs | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Mar 31, 2020 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 2, 2020 to Sep 3, 2026 (6.4 years).
FLV 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 6.4 years both funds cover.
FLV vs IVV Performance
American Century Focused Large Cap Value ETF (FLV) is an ETF from American Century ETFs and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FLV returned +20.29% while IVV returned +21.57%. Year to date, FLV is up 15.77% versus a gain of 13.86% for IVV.
Over three years, FLV compounded at +16.73% per year against +21.48% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +10.00% and +12.88% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +20.56% annualized vs +15.82%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.3% compared with 13.2% for FLV. 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 -15.1% for FLV 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 0.76. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FLV charges 0.42% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $42 vs $3 annually, a gap of $39 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FLV currently yields 1.51% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
87.1% of FLV's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 29.4% of IVV's money is in holdings FLV also owns.
Most of FLV is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
44 positions in common, counted across the 52 positions we hold weights for in FLV and 505 in IVV, against full books of 56 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 453 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for FLV (70.0% of the fund), and 3 for FLV that do not appear in IVV (4.6%).
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 FLV | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 2.58% | 6.86% | 4.28% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 3.46% | 5.44% | 1.98% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.07% | 4.01% | 0.94% |
| BRK.BBerkshire Hathaway Inc Brk/B Us Equity | 3.46% | 1.43% | 2.03% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 3.25% | 1.45% | 1.80% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc.Class A | 1.33% | 3.19% | 1.86% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 3.28% | 0.93% | 2.35% |
| MMCMarsh & Mclennan Cos Inc Common Stock Usd 1 | 4.04% | 0.14% | 3.90% |
| DUKDuke Energy Corp | 3.54% | 0.14% | 3.40% |
| BDXBecton Dickinson And Co. | 3.20% | 0.07% | 3.13% |
87.1% of FLV 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, FLV or IVV?
FLV has an expense ratio of 0.42% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $39 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FLV or IVV?
Over the past year FLV returned +20.29% vs +21.57% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), FLV annualized +15.82% vs +20.56% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FLV or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 13.2% for FLV. Worst drawdown: FLV -15.1% vs IVV -24.5%.
Should I hold both FLV and IVV?
FLV and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.76, 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 FLV and IVV?
87.1% of FLV's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 29.4% of IVV's is in holdings FLV also owns. They hold 44 positions in common, counted across the 52 positions we hold weights for in FLV and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FLV or IVV?
FLV yields 1.51% while IVV yields 1.10%, so FLV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than FLV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FLV is less concentrated, with 32.6% 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.