IRVH vs VOO

IRVH vs VOO

Which is better, IRVH or VOO?

Multi Alternative against Large Cap Blend.

VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window.

Lower Fees: VOOHigher Returns: VOO

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

MetricIRVHVOO
Expense Ratio0.45%0.03%Best
AUM$1M$997.4B
Dividend Yield5.73%1.04%
Holdings43509
YTD Return-5.61%+12.50%Best
1Y Return-6.58%+17.58%Best
3Y Return (annualized)-0.13%+21.27%Best
5Y Return (annualized)-+12.95%
Volatility (annualized)8.0%Best14.3%
Max Drawdown-15.0%Best-18.7%
$10,000 over 4.2 years$9,022$21,162Best
Fund FamilyGlobal X by mirae AssetVanguard (US)
CategoryAlternativeEquity
StyleMulti AlternativeLarge Cap Blend
InceptionJul 5, 2022Sep 7, 2010

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 6, 2022 to Sep 11, 2026 (4.2 years).

IRVH vs VOO 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 4.2 years both funds cover.

IRVH vs VOO Performance

Global X Interest Rate Volatility & Inflation Hedge ETF (IRVH) is an ETF from Global X by mirae Asset and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IRVH returned -6.58% while VOO returned +17.58%. Year to date, IRVH is down 5.61% versus a gain of 12.50% for VOO.

Over three years, IRVH compounded at -0.13% per year against +21.27% for VOO. Across the full 4-year window we track, VOO has the edge at +19.54% annualized vs -2.42%.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

VOO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.3% compared with 8.0% for IRVH. 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 -15.0% for IRVH and -18.7% for VOO. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.34. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.

Fees and Cost Over Time

IRVH charges 0.45% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $45 vs $3 annually, a gap of $42 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IRVH currently yields 5.73% against 1.04% for VOO.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of IRVH and VOO you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

IRVHVOO

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IRVH or VOO?

IRVH has an expense ratio of 0.45% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $42 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, IRVH or VOO?

Over the past year IRVH returned -6.58% vs +17.58% for VOO, so VOO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IRVH annualized -2.42% vs +19.54% for VOO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, IRVH or VOO?

VOO has been the more volatile fund at 14.3% annualized versus 8.0% for IRVH. Worst drawdown: IRVH -15.0% vs VOO -18.7%.

Should I hold both IRVH and VOO?

IRVH and VOO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.34, 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, IRVH or VOO?

IRVH yields 5.73% while VOO yields 1.04%, so IRVH currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is VOO better than IRVH?

VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.