IMCB vs IVV
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IMCB delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IMCB | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.04% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $1.7B | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.22% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 399 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +20.14% | +13.80% | |
| 1Y Return | +26.58% | +23.01% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.06% | +21.77% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.54% | +13.39% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.2% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -59.6% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jun 28, 2004 | May 15, 2000 |
IMCB vs IVV Performance
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IMCB returned +26.58% while IVV returned +23.01%. Year to date, IMCB is up 20.14% versus a gain of 13.80% for IVV.
Over three years, IMCB compounded at +18.06% per year against +21.77% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +9.54% and +13.39% respectively. Across the full 22-year window we track, IMCB has the edge at +9.37% annualized vs +7.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IMCB has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.2% compared with 15.1% 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 -59.6% for IMCB and -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.94. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IMCB charges 0.04% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $4 vs $3 annually, a gap of $1 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IMCB currently yields 1.22% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
IMCB and IVV share 302 holdings out of 599 unique holdings combined, representing a 19.2% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IMCB or IVV?
IMCB has an expense ratio of 0.04% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $1 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IMCB or IVV?
Over the past year IMCB returned +26.58% vs +23.01% for IVV, so IMCB leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (22 years), IMCB annualized +9.37% vs +7.04% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IMCB or IVV?
IMCB has been the more volatile fund at 17.2% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IMCB -59.6% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both IMCB and IVV?
IMCB and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between IMCB and IVV?
IMCB and IVV share 302 common holdings with a 19.2% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 599 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IMCB or IVV?
IMCB yields 1.22% while IVV yields 1.09%, so IMCB currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.