GMF vs IVV
State Street SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, GMF or IVV?
Each has led over a different period.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. GMF led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. GMF is less concentrated, with 28.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%.
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 | GMF | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $435M | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.22% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 1,290 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +12.02% | +13.39%Best |
| 1Y Return | +23.25%Best | +20.08% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.47% | +21.29%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.06% | +12.88%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.8% | 15.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -67.6% | -56.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,420 | $18,327Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 28.7%Best | 37.9% |
| Fund Family | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Mar 19, 2007 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 23, 2007 to Sep 4, 2026 (19.5 years).
GMF 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 19.5 years both funds cover.
GMF vs IVV Performance
State Street SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) is an ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year GMF returned +23.25% while IVV returned +20.08%. Year to date, GMF is up 12.02% versus a gain of 13.39% for IVV.
Over three years, GMF compounded at +18.47% per year against +21.29% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +6.06% and +12.88% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +9.47% annualized vs +5.55%.
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 15.5% 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 what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
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 1.22% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 1,241 holdings in GMF and 505 in IVV, totalling 99.9% and 100.0% 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 127 days apart, GMF as of Mar 31, 2026 and IVV as of Aug 5, 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 1,241 positions we hold weights for in GMF and 505 in IVV, against full books of 1,290 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 497 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for GMF (99.3% of the fund), and 19 for GMF that do not appear in IVV (1.7%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of GMF 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, GMF or IVV?
GMF has an expense ratio of 0.49% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $46 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, GMF or IVV?
Over the past year GMF returned +23.25% vs +20.08% for IVV, so GMF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), GMF annualized +5.55% vs +9.47% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GMF or IVV?
GMF has been the more volatile fund at 20.8% annualized versus 15.5% 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 their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, GMF or IVV?
GMF yields 1.22% while IVV yields 1.10%, so GMF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than GMF?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. GMF led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. GMF is less concentrated, with 28.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.