FTDS vs IVV
First Trust Dividend Strength ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, FTDS or IVV?
Mid Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FTDS led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FTDS is less concentrated, with 22.2% 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 | FTDS | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.70% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $40M | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.53% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 102 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +17.14%Best | +13.39% |
| 1Y Return | +20.77%Best | +20.08% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.34% | +21.29%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.19% | +12.88%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.4% | 15.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -54.7%Best | -56.5% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,823 | $18,327Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 22.2%Best | 37.9% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 5, 2006 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 7, 2006 to Sep 4, 2026 (19.7 years).
FTDS 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 19.7 years both funds cover.
FTDS vs IVV Performance
First Trust Dividend Strength ETF (FTDS) 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 FTDS returned +20.77% while IVV returned +20.08%. Year to date, FTDS is up 17.14% versus a gain of 13.39% for IVV.
Over three years, FTDS compounded at +17.34% per year against +21.29% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +8.19% and +12.88% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +9.41% annualized vs +6.82%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FTDS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.4% compared with 15.4% 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 -54.7% for FTDS 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 0.88. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FTDS charges 0.70% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $70 vs $3 annually, a gap of $67 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FTDS currently yields 1.53% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
76.5% of FTDS's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 2.4% of IVV's money is in holdings FTDS also owns.
Most of FTDS is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
38 positions in common, counted across the 50 positions we hold weights for in FTDS and 505 in IVV, against full books of 102 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 459 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for FTDS (96.9% of the fund), and 11 for FTDS that do not appear in IVV (21.5%).
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 FTDS | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| CTSHCognizant Technology Solutions Corp. Class A | 2.42% | 0.04% | 2.38% |
| GRMNGarminltd. | 2.36% | 0.07% | 2.29% |
| ALLEAllegion Plc | 2.39% | 0.02% | 2.37% |
| INTUIntuit, Inc. | 2.19% | 0.14% | 2.05% |
| BKRBaker Hughes Co | 2.14% | 0.09% | 2.05% |
| DGXQuest Diagnostics Inc | 2.18% | 0.04% | 2.14% |
| NOCNorthrop Grumman Corp. | 2.08% | 0.11% | 1.97% |
| MMCMarsh & Mclennan Cos Inc Common Stock Usd 1 | 2.05% | 0.14% | 1.91% |
| GDGeneral Dynamics Corp. | 2.03% | 0.15% | 1.88% |
| ELVElevance Health Inc | 2.04% | 0.13% | 1.91% |
76.5% of FTDS 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, FTDS or IVV?
FTDS has an expense ratio of 0.70% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $67 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FTDS or IVV?
Over the past year FTDS returned +20.77% vs +20.08% for IVV, so FTDS leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), FTDS annualized +6.82% vs +9.41% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FTDS or IVV?
FTDS has been the more volatile fund at 17.4% annualized versus 15.4% for IVV. Worst drawdown: FTDS -54.7% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both FTDS and IVV?
FTDS and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.88, 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 FTDS and IVV?
76.5% of FTDS's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 2.4% of IVV's is in holdings FTDS also owns. They hold 38 positions in common, counted across the 50 positions we hold weights for in FTDS and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FTDS or IVV?
FTDS yields 1.53% while IVV yields 1.10%, so FTDS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than FTDS?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FTDS led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FTDS is less concentrated, with 22.2% 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.