HTEC vs IVV
ROBO Global Healthcare Technology and Innovation ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, HTEC or IVV?
Mid Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. HTEC led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. HTEC is less concentrated, with 24.4% 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 | HTEC | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.68% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $77M | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.90% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 60 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +19.61%Best | +13.39% |
| 1Y Return | +39.74%Best | +20.08% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.28% | +21.29%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -3.03% | +12.88%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 22.1% | 16.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -57.5% | -33.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $8,574 | $18,327Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 24.4%Best | 37.9% |
| Fund Family | Robo Global | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 25, 2019 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 25, 2019 to Sep 4, 2026 (7.2 years).
HTEC 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 7.2 years both funds cover.
HTEC vs IVV Performance
ROBO Global Healthcare Technology and Innovation ETF (HTEC) is an ETF from Robo Global and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year HTEC returned +39.74% while IVV returned +20.08%. Year to date, HTEC is up 19.61% versus a gain of 13.39% for IVV.
Over three years, HTEC compounded at +15.28% per year against +21.29% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are -3.03% and +12.88% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +15.71% annualized vs +8.22%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
HTEC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.1% compared with 16.4% 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 -57.5% for HTEC 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 0.73. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
HTEC charges 0.68% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $68 vs $3 annually, a gap of $65 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, HTEC currently yields 0.90% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
34.6% of HTEC's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 2.3% of IVV's money is in holdings HTEC also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
20 positions in common, counted across the 63 positions we hold weights for in HTEC and 505 in IVV, against full books of 60 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 477 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for HTEC (97.1% of the fund), and 29 for HTEC 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 HTEC | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRNAModerna therapeutics | 4.19% | 0.03% | 4.16% |
| TMOThermo Fisherscientific Inc. | 2.07% | 0.32% | 1.75% |
| VRTXNvaesrtex Pharmaceuticals Inc | 1.97% | 0.18% | 1.79% |
| REGNRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 1.93% | 0.12% | 1.81% |
| IQVIqvia Holdings Inc | 1.98% | 0.06% | 1.92% |
| ABTAbbott Laboratories | 1.72% | 0.28% | 1.44% |
| SYKStryker Corp 3.375 11/25 | 1.77% | 0.17% | 1.60% |
| CRLCharles River Laboratories International Inc | 1.90% | 0.02% | 1.88% |
| BSXBoston Scientific Corp. | 1.71% | 0.11% | 1.60% |
| DHRDanaher Corporation | 1.61% | 0.19% | 1.42% |
34.6% of HTEC 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, HTEC or IVV?
HTEC has an expense ratio of 0.68% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $65 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, HTEC or IVV?
Over the past year HTEC returned +39.74% vs +20.08% for IVV, so HTEC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), HTEC annualized +8.22% vs +15.71% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, HTEC or IVV?
HTEC has been the more volatile fund at 22.1% annualized versus 16.4% for IVV. Worst drawdown: HTEC -57.5% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both HTEC and IVV?
HTEC and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.73, 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 HTEC and IVV?
34.6% of HTEC's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 2.3% of IVV's is in holdings HTEC also owns. They hold 20 positions in common, counted across the 63 positions we hold weights for in HTEC and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, HTEC or IVV?
HTEC yields 0.90% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than HTEC?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. HTEC led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. HTEC is less concentrated, with 24.4% 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.