FTQI vs IVV
First Trust Nasdaq BuyWrite Income ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, FTQI or IVV?
Long-Short Strategy against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FTQI led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 40.4%.
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 | FTQI | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $955M | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 11.30% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 183 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +14.91%Best | +13.39% |
| 1Y Return | +21.87%Best | +20.08% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.83% | +21.29%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.91% | +12.88%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 9.9%Best | 14.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -20.4%Best | -33.9% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,553 | $18,327Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 40.4% | 37.9%Best |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Long-Short Strategy | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jan 6, 2014 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 7, 2014 to Sep 4, 2026 (12.7 years).
FTQI 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 12.7 years both funds cover.
FTQI vs IVV Performance
First Trust Nasdaq BuyWrite Income ETF (FTQI) 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 FTQI returned +21.87% while IVV returned +20.08%. Year to date, FTQI is up 14.91% versus a gain of 13.39% for IVV.
Over three years, FTQI compounded at +16.83% per year against +21.29% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +11.91% and +12.88% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +12.67% annualized vs +5.20%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.6% compared with 9.9% for FTQI. 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 -20.4% for FTQI and -33.9% 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 0.84. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FTQI charges 0.75% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $3 annually, a gap of $72 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FTQI currently yields 11.30% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
74.8% of FTQI's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 49.2% of IVV's money is in holdings FTQI also owns.
Most of FTQI is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
81 positions in common, counted across the 176 positions we hold weights for in FTQI and 505 in IVV, against full books of 183 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 417 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for FTQI (50.2% of the fund), and 81 for FTQI that do not appear in IVV (15.5%).
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 FTQI | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 8.39% | 6.86% | 1.53% |
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 5.83% | 7.98% | 2.15% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.42% | 4.01% | 0.41% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 4.48% | 1.18% | 3.30% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc.Class A | 2.13% | 3.19% | 1.06% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.23% | 2.98% | 0.75% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 2.90% | 1.94% | 0.96% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.13% | 2.56% | 0.43% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 3.43% | 0.72% | 2.71% |
| TSLATesla Motors Inc | 2.59% | 1.36% | 1.23% |
74.8% of FTQI 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, FTQI or IVV?
FTQI has an expense ratio of 0.75% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $72 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FTQI or IVV?
Over the past year FTQI returned +21.87% vs +20.08% for IVV, so FTQI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), FTQI annualized +5.20% vs +12.67% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FTQI or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 14.6% annualized versus 9.9% for FTQI. Worst drawdown: FTQI -20.4% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both FTQI and IVV?
FTQI and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.84, 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 FTQI and IVV?
74.8% of FTQI's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 49.2% of IVV's is in holdings FTQI also owns. They hold 81 positions in common, counted across the 176 positions we hold weights for in FTQI and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FTQI or IVV?
FTQI yields 11.30% while IVV yields 1.10%, so FTQI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than FTQI?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FTQI led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 40.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.