FTA vs IVV
First Trust Large Cap Value AlphaDEX Fund vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, FTA or IVV?
Large Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FTA led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FTA is less concentrated, with 10.4% 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 | FTA | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $1.4B | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.61% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 376 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +19.45%Best | +13.39% |
| 1Y Return | +26.29%Best | +20.08% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.88% | +21.29%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.42% | +12.88%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.9% | 15.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -63.8% | -56.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,172 | $18,327Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 10.4%Best | 37.9% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 8, 2007 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 11, 2007 to Sep 4, 2026 (19.3 years).
FTA 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 19.3 years both funds cover.
FTA vs IVV Performance
First Trust Large Cap Value AlphaDEX Fund (FTA) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FTA returned +26.29% while IVV returned +20.08%. Year to date, FTA is up 19.45% versus a gain of 13.39% for IVV.
Over three years, FTA compounded at +17.88% per year against +21.29% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +11.42% and +12.88% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +9.26% annualized vs +7.19%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FTA has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.9% compared with 15.6% 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 -63.8% for FTA 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 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FTA charges 0.58% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $3 annually, a gap of $55 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FTA currently yields 1.61% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
91.7% of FTA's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 18.2% of IVV's money is in holdings FTA also owns.
Most of FTA is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
173 positions in common, counted across the 187 positions we hold weights for in FTA and 505 in IVV, against full books of 376 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 325 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for FTA (81.3% of the fund), and 11 for FTA that do not appear in IVV (6.6%).
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 FTA | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRK.BBerkshire Hathaway Inc Brk/B Us Equity | 0.88% | 1.43% | 0.55% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 0.76% | 0.94% | 0.18% |
| ACN:IEAccenture PLC Cl A | 1.17% | 0.16% | 1.01% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 0.77% | 0.52% | 0.25% |
| CTSHCognizant Technology Solutions Corp. Class A | 1.23% | 0.04% | 1.19% |
| VZVerizon Communic | 0.94% | 0.29% | 0.65% |
| PYPLPaypay Holdings, Inc. | 1.14% | 0.08% | 1.06% |
| TAT&T Inc | 0.95% | 0.24% | 0.71% |
| DISWalt Disney Co | 0.90% | 0.27% | 0.63% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 0.55% | 0.62% | 0.07% |
91.7% of FTA 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, FTA or IVV?
FTA has an expense ratio of 0.58% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $55 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FTA or IVV?
Over the past year FTA returned +26.29% vs +20.08% for IVV, so FTA leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), FTA annualized +7.19% vs +9.26% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FTA or IVV?
FTA has been the more volatile fund at 18.9% annualized versus 15.6% for IVV. Worst drawdown: FTA -63.8% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both FTA and IVV?
FTA and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, 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 FTA and IVV?
91.7% of FTA's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 18.2% of IVV's is in holdings FTA also owns. They hold 173 positions in common, counted across the 187 positions we hold weights for in FTA and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FTA or IVV?
FTA yields 1.61% while IVV yields 1.10%, so FTA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than FTA?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FTA led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FTA is less concentrated, with 10.4% 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.