GBXA vs IVV
Goldman Sachs US Large Cap Buffer 1 ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, GBXA or IVV?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97.
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 | GBXA | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $7M | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.34% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 6 | 508 |
| Volatility (annualized) | 8.9%Best | 11.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -12.3%Best | -18.8% |
| $10,000 over 1.2 years | $10,407 | $11,247Best |
| Fund Family | Goldman Sachs Asset Management | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | - | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 30, 2024 | May 15, 2000 |
Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
The two price series end 171 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. GBXA has data through Mar 31, 2026 and IVV through Sep 18, 2026.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 2, 2025 to Mar 31, 2026 (1.2 years).
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 11.6% compared with 8.9% for GBXA. 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 -12.3% for GBXA 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 0.97. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GBXA charges 0.50% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $3 annually, a gap of $47 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GBXA currently yields 0.34% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 1 holding in GBXA and 490 in IVV, totalling 99.9% and 99.3% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
The two holdings books were reported 243 days apart, GBXA as of Dec 31, 2025 and IVV as of Aug 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
0 positions in common, counted across the 1 positions we hold weights for in GBXA and 490 in IVV, against full books of 6 and 508.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of GBXA and IVV you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, GBXA or IVV?
GBXA has an expense ratio of 0.50% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $47 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which is riskier, GBXA or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 11.6% annualized versus 8.9% for GBXA. Worst drawdown: GBXA -12.3% vs IVV -18.8%.
Should I hold both GBXA and IVV?
GBXA and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, 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, GBXA or IVV?
GBXA yields 0.34% while IVV yields 1.06%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than GBXA?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.