GAUG vs IVV

GAUG vs IVV

Which is better, GAUG or IVV?

Multi Alternative 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 0.96.

Lower Fees: IVVHigher Returns: IVV

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

MetricGAUGIVV
Expense Ratio0.85%0.03%Best
AUM$388M$876.4B
Dividend Yield0.00%1.06%
Holdings10508
YTD Return+6.21%+11.03%Best
1Y Return+8.67%+15.62%Best
3Y Return (annualized)+11.49%+20.81%Best
5Y Return (annualized)-+12.61%
Volatility (annualized)6.2%Best12.9%
Max Drawdown-10.1%Best-18.8%
$10,000 over 3.1 years$14,037$17,960Best
Fund FamilyFirst Trust Portfolios (US)iShares by BlackRock (US)
CategoryAlternativeEquity
StyleMulti AlternativeLarge Cap Blend
InceptionAug 18, 2023May 15, 2000

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.1 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 21, 2023 to Sep 16, 2026 (3.1 years).

GAUG 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 3.1 years both funds cover.

GAUG vs IVV Performance

FT Vest US Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - August (GAUG) 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 GAUG returned +8.67% while IVV returned +15.62%. Year to date, GAUG is up 6.21% versus a gain of 11.03% for IVV.

Over three years, GAUG compounded at +11.49% per year against +20.81% for IVV.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.9% compared with 6.2% for GAUG. 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 -10.1% for GAUG 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 0.96. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.

Fees and Cost Over Time

GAUG charges 0.85% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $85 vs $3 annually, a gap of $82 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GAUG currently yields 0.00% against 1.06% for IVV.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of GAUG and IVV you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

GAUGIVV

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, GAUG or IVV?

GAUG has an expense ratio of 0.85% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $82 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, GAUG or IVV?

Over the past year GAUG returned +8.67% vs +15.62% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, GAUG or IVV?

IVV has been the more volatile fund at 12.9% annualized versus 6.2% for GAUG. Worst drawdown: GAUG -10.1% vs IVV -18.8%.

Should I hold both GAUG and IVV?

GAUG and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, 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.

Which pays a higher dividend, GAUG or IVV?

GAUG yields 0.00% while IVV yields 1.06%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is IVV better than GAUG?

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.