IAUM vs IVV
iShares Gold Trust Micro vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, IAUM or IVV?
Gold against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IAUM led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, IVV over 1Y.
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 | IAUM | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.09% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $7.8B | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 2 | 508 |
| YTD Return | -1.13% | +12.01%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.29% | +16.48%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +30.57%Best | +21.21% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +18.79%Best | +12.95% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.7% | 15.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -26.3% | -24.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $23,654Best | $18,384 |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Commodity | Equity |
| Style | Gold | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 15, 2021 | May 15, 2000 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 29, 2021 to Sep 14, 2026 (5.2 years).
IAUM 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 5.2 years both funds cover.
IAUM vs IVV Performance
iShares Gold Trust Micro (IAUM) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IAUM returned +16.29% while IVV returned +16.48%. Year to date, IAUM is down 1.13% versus a gain of 12.01% for IVV.
Over three years, IAUM compounded at +30.57% per year against +21.21% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +18.79% and +12.95% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IAUM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.7% compared with 15.6% 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 -26.3% for IAUM and -24.5% 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 0.18. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IAUM charges 0.09% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $9 vs $3 annually, a gap of $6 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IAUM currently yields 0.00% against 1.06% for IVV.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IAUM 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, IAUM or IVV?
IAUM has an expense ratio of 0.09% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $6 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IAUM or IVV?
Over the past year IAUM returned +16.29% vs +16.48% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IAUM or IVV?
IAUM has been the more volatile fund at 16.7% annualized versus 15.6% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IAUM -26.3% vs IVV -24.5%.
Should I hold both IAUM and IVV?
IAUM and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.18, 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, IAUM or IVV?
IAUM yields 0.00% while IVV yields 1.06%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than IAUM?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IAUM led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, IVV over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.