FMF vs IVV
First Trust Managed Futures Strategy 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 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FMF | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.98% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $261M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 5.05% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 11 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +7.01% | +13.22% | |
| 1Y Return | +11.94% | +21.62% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +5.38% | +22.17% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +4.90% | +13.42% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 7.3% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -24.8% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Alternative | Equity | |
| Inception | Aug 1, 2013 | May 15, 2000 |
FMF vs IVV Performance
First Trust Managed Futures Strategy Fund (FMF) is a ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FMF returned +11.94% while IVV returned +21.62%. Year to date, FMF is up 7.01% versus a gain of 13.22% for IVV.
Over three years, FMF compounded at +5.38% per year against +22.17% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +4.90% and +13.42% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.02% annualized vs +1.41%. 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 7.3% for FMF. 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 -24.8% for FMF 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 0.07. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FMF charges 0.98% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $98 vs $3 annually, a gap of $95 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FMF currently yields 5.05% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
FMF and IVV share 0 holdings out of 507 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, FMF or IVV?
FMF has an expense ratio of 0.98% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $95 per year of difference.
Which performed better, FMF or IVV?
Over the past year FMF returned +11.94% vs +21.62% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), FMF annualized +1.41% vs +7.02% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, FMF or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 7.3% for FMF. Worst drawdown: FMF -24.8% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both FMF and IVV?
FMF and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.07, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between FMF and IVV?
FMF and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 507 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, FMF or IVV?
FMF yields 5.05% while IVV yields 1.10%, so FMF 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.