FT vs IVV
Franklin Universal Trust vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, FT or IVV?
Debt-oriented balanced against Large Cap Blend.
FT has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window.
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 | FT | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.00%Best | 0.03% |
| AUM | $212M | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 5.95% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 704 | 508 |
| YTD Return | -5.04% | +11.03%Best |
| 1Y Return | -2.01% | +15.62%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +9.69% | +20.81%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +4.01% | +12.61%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.1% | 15.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -65.2% | -56.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $12,172 | $18,109Best |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Allocation/Balanced | Equity |
| Style | Debt-oriented balanced | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 23, 1988 | May 15, 2000 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 19, 2000 to Sep 16, 2026 (26.3 years).
FT 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 26.3 years both funds cover.
FT vs IVV Performance
Franklin Universal Trust (FT) 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 FT returned -2.01% while IVV returned +15.62%. Year to date, FT is down 5.04% versus a gain of 11.03% for IVV.
Over three years, FT compounded at +9.69% per year against +20.81% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +4.01% and +12.61% respectively. Across the full 26-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +6.92% annualized vs +1.61%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.1% 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 -65.2% for FT and -56.5% 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 0.59. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FT charges 0.00% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $0 vs $3 annually, a gap of $3 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FT currently yields 5.95% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
At least 2.1% of IVV's money is in holdings FT also owns.
Only one direction is shown: for FT, our book for it lists positions totalling 114.3% of the fund, which is what a leveraged book looks like and is not a denominator we can divide by.
IVV and FT share little of their money.
The two holdings books were reported 184 days apart, FT as of Feb 28, 2026 and IVV as of Aug 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
26 positions in common, counted across the 307 positions we hold weights for in FT and 490 in IVV, against full books of 704 and 508.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in FT | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NEENextera Energy Inc | 4.74% | 0.26% | 4.48% |
| SRESempra Common Stock | 3.81% | 0.08% | 3.73% |
| ETREntergy Corp. | 2.82% | 0.07% | 2.75% |
| EVRGEvergy Inc. | 2.65% | 0.03% | 2.62% |
| LNTAlliant Energy Corp. | 2.54% | 0.03% | 2.51% |
| DUKDuke Energy Corp | 2.30% | 0.14% | 2.16% |
| CNPCenterpoint Energy Inc. | 2.35% | 0.04% | 2.31% |
| SOSouthern Co. | 2.14% | 0.15% | 1.99% |
| AEPAmerican Electric Power Co Inc | 2.12% | 0.10% | 2.02% |
| CMSCms Energy Corp. | 2.06% | 0.03% | 2.03% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of FT and IVV you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FT or IVV?
FT has an expense ratio of 0.00% while IVV charges 0.03%. FT is the cheaper option, by $3 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FT or IVV?
Over the past year FT returned -2.01% vs +15.62% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (26 years), FT annualized +1.61% vs +6.92% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FT or IVV?
FT has been the more volatile fund at 16.1% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: FT -65.2% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both FT and IVV?
FT and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.59, 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 FT and IVV?
At least 2.1% of IVV's money is in holdings FT also owns. Our book for FT is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 26 positions in common, counted across the 307 positions we hold weights for in FT and 490 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FT or IVV?
FT yields 5.95% while IVV yields 1.06%, so FT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than FT?
FT has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.