GURU vs IVV
Global X Guru Index ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, GURU or IVV?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. GURU led over 3Y, IVV over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. GURU is less concentrated, with 14.4% 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 | GURU | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $62M | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.08% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 88 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +8.45% | +11.51%Best |
| 1Y Return | +13.78% | +15.96%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.19%Best | +21.01% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.61% | +12.66%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.6% | 14.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -38.5% | -33.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,772 | $18,149Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 14.4%Best | 37.8% |
| Fund Family | Global X by mirae Asset | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 4, 2012 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 5, 2012 to Sep 15, 2026 (14.3 years).
GURU 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 14.3 years both funds cover.
GURU vs IVV Performance
Global X Guru Index ETF (GURU) is an ETF from Global X by mirae Asset and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year GURU returned +13.78% while IVV returned +15.96%. Year to date, GURU is up 8.45% versus a gain of 11.51% for IVV.
Over three years, GURU compounded at +22.19% per year against +21.01% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +6.61% and +12.66% respectively. Across the full 14-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +13.83% annualized vs +12.05%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
GURU has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.6% compared with 14.1% 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 -38.5% for GURU and -33.9% 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 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GURU 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, GURU currently yields 0.08% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
46.0% of GURU's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 42.9% of IVV's money is in holdings GURU also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
37 positions in common, counted across the 80 positions we hold weights for in GURU and 490 in IVV, against full books of 88 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 445 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for GURU (55.8% of the fund), and 37 for GURU that do not appear in IVV (46.6%).
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 GURU | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 1.24% | 8.07% | 6.83% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 1.37% | 7.02% | 5.65% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 1.34% | 5.69% | 4.35% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 1.25% | 3.84% | 2.59% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 1.25% | 3.00% | 1.75% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.21% | 2.65% | 1.44% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.30% | 1.90% | 0.60% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.18% | 1.63% | 0.45% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.26% | 1.44% | 0.18% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.25% | 1.38% | 0.13% |
46.0% of GURU 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, GURU or IVV?
GURU 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.
Which performed better, GURU or IVV?
Over the past year GURU returned +13.78% vs +15.96% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (14 years), GURU annualized +12.05% vs +13.83% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GURU or IVV?
GURU has been the more volatile fund at 16.6% annualized versus 14.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: GURU -38.5% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both GURU and IVV?
GURU and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, 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 GURU and IVV?
46.0% of GURU's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 42.9% of IVV's is in holdings GURU also owns. They hold 37 positions in common, counted across the 80 positions we hold weights for in GURU and 490 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, GURU or IVV?
GURU yields 0.08% while IVV yields 1.06%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than GURU?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. GURU led over 3Y, IVV over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. GURU is less concentrated, with 14.4% 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.