GRNJ vs IVV

GRNJ vs IVV

Which is better, GRNJ or IVV?

Mid Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.

IVV has a lower expense ratio. GRNJ is less concentrated, with 18.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.1%.

Lower Fees: IVVLess Concentrated: GRNJ

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

MetricGRNJIVV
Expense Ratio0.75%0.03%Best
AUM$491M$882.6B
Dividend Yield0.00%1.06%
Holdings128508
YTD Return+14.80%Best+13.60%
1Y Return-+16.32%
3Y Return (annualized)-+23.81%
5Y Return (annualized)-+14.03%
Top 10 Weight18.2%Best38.1%
Fund FamilyFundstrat CapitaliShares by BlackRock (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleMid Cap BlendLarge Cap Blend
InceptionNov 17, 2025May 15, 2000

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

GRNJ 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

GRNJ vs IVV Performance

Fundstrat Granny Shots US Small- & Mid-Cap ETF (GRNJ) is an ETF from Fundstrat Capital and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Year to date, GRNJ is up 14.80% versus a gain of 13.60% for IVV.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

GRNJ charges 0.75% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $3 annually, a gap of $72 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GRNJ currently yields 0.00% against 1.06% for IVV.

Holdings Overlap

GRNJ already in IVV11.6%
IVV already in GRNJ0.3%

11.6% of GRNJ's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 0.3% of IVV's money is in holdings GRNJ also owns.

GRNJ and IVV share little of their money.

7 positions in common, counted across the 63 positions we hold weights for in GRNJ and 505 in IVV, against full books of 128 and 508.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 490 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for GRNJ (98.9% of the fund), and 53 for GRNJ that do not appear in IVV (84.0%).

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

StockWeight in GRNJWeight in IVVDifference
LITELumentum Holdings Inc1.79%0.11%1.68%
SATS'echostar Communications Corp. Class 'a''1.78%0.02%1.76%
RDDTReddit Inc-Cl A1.76%0.03%1.73%
FIXComfort Systems USA Inc.1.60%0.09%1.51%
FSLRFirst Solar, Inc1.59%0.03%1.56%
HIIHuntington Ingalls Industries Inc.1.54%0.02%1.52%
ALBAlbemarle Corp.1.50%0.02%1.48%

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

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

GRNJIVV

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, GRNJ or IVV?

GRNJ has an expense ratio of 0.75% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $72 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between GRNJ and IVV?

11.6% of GRNJ's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 0.3% of IVV's is in holdings GRNJ also owns. They hold 7 positions in common, counted across the 63 positions we hold weights for in GRNJ and 505 in IVV.

Which pays a higher dividend, GRNJ or IVV?

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

Is IVV better than GRNJ?

IVV has a lower expense ratio. GRNJ is less concentrated, with 18.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.1%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.