FXO vs IVV
First Trust Financials AlphaDEX Fund vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, FXO or IVV?
Mid Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FXO led over 3Y, IVV over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. FXO is less concentrated, with 18.1% 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 | FXO | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.60% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $1.1B | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.99% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 210 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +11.71% | +13.86%Best |
| 1Y Return | +15.99% | +21.57%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.13%Best | +21.48% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.78% | +12.88%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.4% | 15.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -72.2% | -56.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,684 | $18,327Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 18.1%Best | 37.9% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid 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 10, 2007 to Sep 3, 2026 (19.3 years).
FXO 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.
FXO vs IVV Performance
First Trust Financials AlphaDEX Fund (FXO) 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 FXO returned +15.99% while IVV returned +21.57%. Year to date, FXO is up 11.71% versus a gain of 13.86% for IVV.
Over three years, FXO compounded at +22.13% per year against +21.48% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +10.78% and +12.88% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +9.33% annualized vs +7.17%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FXO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.4% 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 -72.2% for FXO 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 0.84. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FXO 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, FXO currently yields 1.99% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
39.2% of FXO's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 5.6% of IVV's money is in holdings FXO also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
42 positions in common, counted across the 104 positions we hold weights for in FXO and 505 in IVV, against full books of 210 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 455 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for FXO (93.7% of the fund), and 58 for FXO that do not appear in IVV (55.0%).
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 FXO | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRK.BBerkshire Hathaway Inc Brk/B Us Equity | 1.61% | 1.43% | 0.18% |
| TRVThe Travelers Cos, Inc. | 1.80% | 0.12% | 1.68% |
| FDSFactset Research Systems Inc. | 1.87% | 0.02% | 1.85% |
| ALLAllstate Corp. | 1.72% | 0.10% | 1.62% |
| HIGHartford Financial Services Group Inc. | 1.68% | 0.06% | 1.62% |
| AIGAmerican International Gr | 1.67% | 0.06% | 1.61% |
| EGEverest Group, Ltd. | 1.62% | 0.02% | 1.60% |
| IBKRInteractive Brokers Group Inc | 1.58% | 0.06% | 1.52% |
| TROWT Rowe Price Grp | 1.57% | 0.04% | 1.53% |
| CINFCincinnati Financial Corp. | 1.49% | 0.04% | 1.45% |
39.2% of FXO 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, FXO or IVV?
FXO 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, FXO or IVV?
Over the past year FXO returned +15.99% vs +21.57% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), FXO annualized +7.17% vs +9.33% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FXO or IVV?
FXO has been the more volatile fund at 21.4% annualized versus 15.6% for IVV. Worst drawdown: FXO -72.2% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both FXO and IVV?
FXO 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 FXO and IVV?
39.2% of FXO's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 5.6% of IVV's is in holdings FXO also owns. They hold 42 positions in common, counted across the 104 positions we hold weights for in FXO and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FXO or IVV?
FXO yields 1.99% while IVV yields 1.10%, so FXO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than FXO?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FXO led over 3Y, IVV over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. FXO is less concentrated, with 18.1% 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.