FSSL vs IVV

FSSL vs IVV

Which is better, FSSL or IVV?

High Yield Bond against Large Cap Blend.

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y.

Lower Fees: IVVHigher Returns (1Y): IVV

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

MetricFSSLIVV
Expense Ratio6.98%0.03%Best
AUM$1.3B$850.0B
Dividend Yield10.40%1.09%
Holdings1611,018
YTD Return-6.82%+8.54%Best
1Y Return-1.47%+10.97%Best
3Y Return (annualized)-+20.51%
5Y Return (annualized)-+10.97%
Volatility (annualized)16.6%13.9%Best
Fund FamilyFS Specialty Lending FundiShares by BlackRock (US)
CategoryFixed IncomeEquity
StyleHigh Yield BondLarge Cap Blend
InceptionJul 18, 2011May 15, 2000

Not shown on this pair: Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window, Top 10 Weight.

FSSL 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

FSSL vs IVV Performance

FS Specialty Lending Fund (FSSL) is an ETF from FS Specialty Lending Fund and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FSSL returned -1.47% while IVV returned +10.97%. Year to date, FSSL is down 6.82% versus a gain of 8.54% for IVV.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

FSSL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.6% compared with 13.9% for IVV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at -0.13. They move largely independently of each other.

Fees and Cost Over Time

FSSL charges 6.98% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $698 vs $3 annually, a gap of $695 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FSSL currently yields 10.40% against 1.09% for IVV.

Holdings Overlap

We hold position weights for 8 holdings in FSSL and 505 in IVV, totalling 9.7% and 100.1% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.

The two holdings books were reported 108 days apart, FSSL as of Jun 30, 2026 and IVV as of Oct 16, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.

0 positions in common, counted across the 8 positions we hold weights for in FSSL and 505 in IVV, against full books of 161 and 1,018.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of FSSL and IVV you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

FSSLIVV

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, FSSL or IVV?

FSSL has an expense ratio of 6.98% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $695 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, FSSL or IVV?

Over the past year FSSL returned -1.47% vs +10.97% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, FSSL or IVV?

FSSL has been the more volatile fund at 16.6% annualized versus 13.9% for IVV.

Should I hold both FSSL and IVV?

FSSL and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of -0.13, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which pays a higher dividend, FSSL or IVV?

FSSL yields 10.40% while IVV yields 1.09%, so FSSL currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is IVV better than FSSL?

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.