HELX vs IVV
Franklin Genomic Advancements ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, HELX or IVV?
Mid Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. HELX led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.9%.
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 | HELX | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $32M | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 69 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +12.49%Best | +11.57% |
| 1Y Return | +36.27%Best | +17.57% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.23% | +20.71%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -6.48% | +12.80%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 25.0% | 16.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -58.8% | -28.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $7,154 | $18,262Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 47.9% | 37.9%Best |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Feb 25, 2020 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 27, 2020 to Sep 10, 2026 (6.5 years).
HELX 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 6.5 years both funds cover.
HELX vs IVV Performance
Franklin Genomic Advancements ETF (HELX) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year HELX returned +36.27% while IVV returned +17.57%. Year to date, HELX is up 12.49% versus a gain of 11.57% for IVV.
Over three years, HELX compounded at +11.23% per year against +20.71% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are -6.48% and +12.80% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +16.76% annualized vs +8.64%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
HELX has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 25.0% compared with 16.7% 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 -58.8% for HELX and -28.6% 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 0.67. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
HELX 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, HELX currently yields 0.00% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
16.1% of HELX's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 2.8% of IVV's money is in holdings HELX also owns.
HELX and IVV share little of their money.
11 positions in common, counted across the 66 positions we hold weights for in HELX and 505 in IVV, against full books of 69 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 484 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for HELX (96.6% of the fund), and 42 for HELX that do not appear in IVV (71.8%).
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 HELX | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.88% | 1.39% | 1.49% |
| VRTXVertex Pharmaceuticals Inc | 2.68% | 0.18% | 2.50% |
| CTVACorteva Inc. | 2.60% | 0.08% | 2.52% |
| REGNRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 2.22% | 0.12% | 2.10% |
| CRLCharles River Laboratories International Inc | 1.32% | 0.02% | 1.30% |
| TMOThermo Fisher Scientific Inc | 0.86% | 0.32% | 0.54% |
| IQVIqvia Holdings Inc. | 1.00% | 0.06% | 0.94% |
| CDNSCadence Design Systems Inc. | 0.90% | 0.14% | 0.76% |
| DHRDanaher Corp. | 0.60% | 0.19% | 0.41% |
| AAgilent Tech In 3.2 10/22 | 0.62% | 0.06% | 0.56% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of HELX 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, HELX or IVV?
HELX 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, HELX or IVV?
Over the past year HELX returned +36.27% vs +17.57% for IVV, so HELX leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), HELX annualized +8.64% vs +16.76% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, HELX or IVV?
HELX has been the more volatile fund at 25.0% annualized versus 16.7% for IVV. Worst drawdown: HELX -58.8% vs IVV -28.6%.
Should I hold both HELX and IVV?
HELX and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.67, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between HELX and IVV?
16.1% of HELX's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 2.8% of IVV's is in holdings HELX also owns. They hold 11 positions in common, counted across the 66 positions we hold weights for in HELX and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, HELX or IVV?
HELX yields 0.00% while IVV yields 1.06%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than HELX?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. HELX led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.