GANZ vs IVV

GANZ vs IVV

Which is better, GANZ or IVV?

IVV costs less.

IVV has a lower expense ratio. GANZ is less concentrated, with 38.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.8%.

Lower Fees: IVVLess Concentrated: GANZ

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

MetricGANZIVV
Expense Ratio0.75%0.03%Best
AUM$893,485.68$850.0B
Dividend Yield0.00%1.09%
Holdings301,018
YTD Return-4.27%+12.12%Best
1Y Return-+12.53%
3Y Return (annualized)-+21.54%
5Y Return (annualized)-+11.93%
Top 10 Weight38.4%Best38.8%
Fund FamilyTuttle FundsiShares by BlackRock (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Blend
InceptionOct 15, 2026May 15, 2000

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

GANZ 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

GANZ vs IVV Performance

Tuttle Capital Thematic ETF (GANZ) is an ETF from Tuttle Funds and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Year to date, GANZ is down 4.27% versus a gain of 12.12% for IVV.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

GANZ 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, GANZ currently yields 0.00% against 1.09% for IVV.

Holdings Overlap

GANZ already in IVV68.6%
IVV already in GANZ21.8%

68.6% of GANZ's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 21.8% of IVV's money is in holdings GANZ also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

20 positions in common, counted across the 30 positions we hold weights for in GANZ and 505 in IVV, against full books of 30 and 1,018.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 479 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for GANZ (77.8% of the fund), and 9 for GANZ that do not appear in IVV (27.4%).

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

StockWeight in GANZWeight in IVVDifference
NVDANvidia Corp3.22%8.04%4.82%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp3.28%5.95%2.67%
AVGOBroadcom Inc3.31%2.47%0.84%
LRCXLam Research Corporation4.37%0.54%3.83%
MUMicron Technology, Inc.3.36%1.55%1.81%
UBERUber Technologies Inc4.08%0.21%3.87%
CRMSalesforce Inc Crm Us Equity3.90%0.29%3.61%
ADBEAdobe Systems4.04%0.14%3.90%
DPZDomino's Pizza Inc4.14%0.01%4.13%
LLYEli Lilly & Co2.61%1.45%1.16%

68.6% of GANZ 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.

GANZIVV

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, GANZ or IVV?

GANZ 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.

What is the holdings overlap between GANZ and IVV?

68.6% of GANZ's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 21.8% of IVV's is in holdings GANZ also owns. They hold 20 positions in common, counted across the 30 positions we hold weights for in GANZ and 505 in IVV.

Which pays a higher dividend, GANZ or IVV?

GANZ yields 0.00% while IVV yields 1.09%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is IVV better than GANZ?

IVV has a lower expense ratio. GANZ is less concentrated, with 38.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.