GMF vs IVV
State Street SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. GMF offers more diversification with 1239 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | GMF | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $424M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.19% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 1,290 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +10.65% | +14.50% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.45% | +22.02% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.35% | +21.80% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.72% | +13.37% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.8% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -67.6% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 19, 2007 | May 15, 2000 |
GMF vs IVV Performance
State Street SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) is a ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year GMF returned +20.45% while IVV returned +22.02%. Year to date, GMF is up 10.65% versus a gain of 14.50% for IVV.
Over three years, GMF compounded at +18.35% per year against +21.80% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +6.72% and +13.37% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.07% annualized vs +5.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
GMF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.8% compared with 15.1% 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 -67.6% for GMF and -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.70. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GMF charges 0.49% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $3 annually, a gap of $46 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GMF currently yields 1.19% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
GMF and IVV share 0 holdings out of 1744 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, GMF or IVV?
GMF has an expense ratio of 0.49% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $46 per year of difference.
Which performed better, GMF or IVV?
Over the past year GMF returned +20.45% vs +22.02% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), GMF annualized +5.50% vs +7.07% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, GMF or IVV?
GMF has been the more volatile fund at 20.8% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: GMF -67.6% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both GMF and IVV?
GMF and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.70, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between GMF and IVV?
GMF and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 1744 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, GMF or IVV?
GMF yields 1.19% while IVV yields 1.09%, so GMF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.