FSGS vs IVV
First Trust SMID Growth Strength 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 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FSGS | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.61% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $32M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.03% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 101 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +10.58% | +12.28% | |
| 1Y Return | +9.13% | +20.94% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +9.68% | +21.81% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +5.28% | +13.05% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.8% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -45.0% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jun 20, 2017 | May 15, 2000 |
FSGS vs IVV Performance
First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS) 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 FSGS returned +9.13% while IVV returned +20.94%. Year to date, FSGS is up 10.58% versus a gain of 12.28% for IVV.
Over three years, FSGS compounded at +9.68% per year against +21.81% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +5.28% and +13.05% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, FSGS has the edge at +7.03% annualized vs +6.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FSGS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.8% 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 -45.0% for FSGS 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 0.84. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FSGS charges 0.61% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $61 vs $3 annually, a gap of $58 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FSGS currently yields 0.03% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
FSGS and IVV share 17 holdings out of 588 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.6% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FSGS or IVV?
FSGS has an expense ratio of 0.61% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $58 per year of difference.
Which performed better, FSGS or IVV?
Over the past year FSGS returned +9.13% vs +20.94% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), FSGS annualized +7.03% vs +6.98% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, FSGS or IVV?
FSGS has been the more volatile fund at 20.8% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: FSGS -45.0% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both FSGS and IVV?
FSGS and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.84, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between FSGS and IVV?
FSGS and IVV share 17 common holdings with a 0.6% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 588 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, FSGS or IVV?
FSGS yields 0.03% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IVV 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.