GDIV vs IVV
Harbor Dividend Growth Leaders ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, GDIV or IVV?
IVV has been ahead.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. GDIV is less concentrated, with 33.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%.
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 | GDIV | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $240M | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.12% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 52 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +10.38% | +12.39%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.03% | +16.61%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.31% | +21.38%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.51% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.2%Best | 15.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -18.9% | -18.8%Best |
| $10,000 over 4.3 years | $16,062 | $20,360Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 33.4%Best | 37.8% |
| Fund Family | Harbor Funds | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 29, 2010 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: May 23, 2022 to Sep 18, 2026 (4.3 years).
GDIV 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 4.3 years both funds cover.
GDIV vs IVV Performance
Harbor Dividend Growth Leaders ETF (GDIV) is an ETF from Harbor Funds and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year GDIV returned +16.03% while IVV returned +16.61%. Year to date, GDIV is up 10.38% versus a gain of 12.39% for IVV.
Over three years, GDIV compounded at +15.31% per year against +21.38% for IVV. Across the full 4-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +17.98% annualized vs +11.65%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.3% compared with 14.2% for GDIV. 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 -18.9% for GDIV 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 0.92. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GDIV 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, GDIV currently yields 1.12% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
70.4% of GDIV's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 25.2% of IVV's money is in holdings GDIV also owns.
Most of GDIV is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
37 positions in common, counted across the 53 positions we hold weights for in GDIV and 490 in IVV, against full books of 52 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 445 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for GDIV (73.5% of the fund), and 15 for GDIV that do not appear in IVV (24.2%).
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 GDIV | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.40% | 7.02% | 1.62% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 3.00% | 5.69% | 2.69% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 4.10% | 1.38% | 2.72% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.50% | 2.65% | 0.15% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 3.10% | 0.97% | 2.13% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 2.70% | 0.61% | 2.09% |
| WMBWilliams Cos. Inc. | 3.10% | 0.14% | 2.96% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 2.70% | 0.52% | 2.18% |
| CRMSalesforce Inc Crm Us Equity | 2.40% | 0.32% | 2.08% |
| GILDGilead Sciences | 2.40% | 0.27% | 2.13% |
70.4% of GDIV 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, GDIV or IVV?
GDIV 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 performed better, GDIV or IVV?
Over the past year GDIV returned +16.03% vs +16.61% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), GDIV annualized +11.65% vs +17.98% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GDIV or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 14.2% for GDIV. Worst drawdown: GDIV -18.9% vs IVV -18.8%.
Should I hold both GDIV and IVV?
GDIV and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, 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.
What is the holdings overlap between GDIV and IVV?
70.4% of GDIV's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 25.2% of IVV's is in holdings GDIV also owns. They hold 37 positions in common, counted across the 53 positions we hold weights for in GDIV and 490 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, GDIV or IVV?
GDIV yields 1.12% while IVV yields 1.06%, so GDIV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than GDIV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. GDIV is less concentrated, with 33.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.