FTGS vs IVV
First Trust Growth Strength ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, FTGS or IVV?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. FTGS is less concentrated, with 22.0% 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 | FTGS | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.60% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $1.3B | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.08% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 102 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +10.16% | +13.86%Best |
| 1Y Return | +9.95% | +21.57%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.97% | +21.48%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.88% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.4% | 12.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -20.0% | -18.8%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.9 years | $19,566 | $21,523Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 22.0%Best | 37.9% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Oct 25, 2022 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 26, 2022 to Sep 3, 2026 (3.9 years).
FTGS 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 3.9 years both funds cover.
FTGS vs IVV Performance
First Trust Growth Strength ETF (FTGS) 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 FTGS returned +9.95% while IVV returned +21.57%. Year to date, FTGS is up 10.16% versus a gain of 13.86% for IVV.
Over three years, FTGS compounded at +16.97% per year against +21.48% for IVV. Across the full 4-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +21.72% annualized vs +18.78%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FTGS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.4% compared with 12.9% 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 -20.0% for FTGS and -18.8% 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 0.91. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FTGS charges 0.60% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $60 vs $3 annually, a gap of $57 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FTGS currently yields 0.08% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
96.3% of FTGS's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 27.3% of IVV's money is in holdings FTGS also owns.
Most of FTGS is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
48 positions in common, counted across the 50 positions we hold weights for in FTGS and 505 in IVV, against full books of 102 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 449 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for FTGS (72.1% of the fund), and 2 for FTGS that do not appear in IVV (3.6%).
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 FTGS | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 2.05% | 7.98% | 5.93% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 2.35% | 5.44% | 3.09% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.14% | 2.98% | 0.84% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 1.73% | 1.94% | 0.21% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.88% | 1.39% | 0.49% |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 2.27% | 0.55% | 1.72% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 1.99% | 0.69% | 1.30% |
| ANETArista Networks Inc Common Stock | 2.22% | 0.31% | 1.91% |
| COSTCostco Wholesale Corp. | 1.90% | 0.63% | 1.27% |
| NFLXNetflix, Inc. | 2.04% | 0.47% | 1.57% |
96.3% of FTGS 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, FTGS or IVV?
FTGS has an expense ratio of 0.60% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $57 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FTGS or IVV?
Over the past year FTGS returned +9.95% vs +21.57% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), FTGS annualized +18.78% vs +21.72% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FTGS or IVV?
FTGS has been the more volatile fund at 14.4% annualized versus 12.9% for IVV. Worst drawdown: FTGS -20.0% vs IVV -18.8%.
Should I hold both FTGS and IVV?
FTGS and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FTGS and IVV?
96.3% of FTGS's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 27.3% of IVV's is in holdings FTGS also owns. They hold 48 positions in common, counted across the 50 positions we hold weights for in FTGS and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FTGS or IVV?
FTGS yields 0.08% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than FTGS?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. FTGS is less concentrated, with 22.0% 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.