IVV vs IWB
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 ETF
Which is better, IVV or IWB?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y, IWB over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 1.00. IWB is less concentrated, with 34.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%.
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 | IVV | IWB |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.15% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $48.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.93% |
| Holdings | 508 | 1,029 |
| YTD Return | +13.23%Best | +12.71% |
| 1Y Return | +17.38%Best | +16.51% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.67%Best | +22.23% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.13%Best | +12.26% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1%Best | 15.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -56.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,531Best | $17,829 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8% | 34.8%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 19, 2000 to Sep 24, 2026 (26.3 years).
IVV vs IWB 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 26.3 years both funds cover.
IVV vs IWB Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IVV returned +17.38% while IWB returned +16.51%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.23% versus a gain of 12.71% for IWB.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.67% per year against +22.23% for IWB; over five years the annualized figures are +13.13% and +12.26% respectively. Across the full 26-year window we track, IWB has the edge at +7.07% annualized vs +6.99%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWB has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.3% 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 -56.5% for IVV and -56.4% for IWB. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 1.00. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while IWB charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $15 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.93% for IWB.
Holdings Overlap
97.3% of IVV's money is in holdings IWB also owns. 90.3% of IWB's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of IVV is already inside IWB. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
453 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 853 in IWB, against full books of 508 and 1,029.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 327 positions for IWB that do not appear in our book for IVV (7.0% of the fund), and 31 for IVV that do not appear in IWB (1.4%).
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 IVV | Weight in IWB | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.07% | 7.26% | 0.81% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.02% | 6.45% | 0.57% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.69% | 5.31% | 0.38% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.84% | 3.55% | 0.29% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 2.79% | 0.21% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.65% | 2.43% | 0.22% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.39% | 2.25% | 0.14% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 1.77% | 0.13% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.63% | 1.52% | 0.11% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.56% | 1.51% | 0.05% |
97.3% of IVV is already inside IWB.
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, IVV or IWB?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while IWB charges 0.15%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $12 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or IWB?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.38% vs +16.51% for IWB, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (26 years), IVV annualized +6.99% vs +7.07% for IWB. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or IWB?
IWB has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs IWB -56.4%.
Should I hold both IVV and IWB?
IVV and IWB have a monthly-return correlation of 1.00, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and IWB?
97.3% of IVV's money is in holdings IWB also owns. 90.3% of IWB's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 453 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 853 in IWB.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or IWB?
IVV yields 1.06% while IWB yields 0.93%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWB better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y, IWB over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 1.00. IWB is less concentrated, with 34.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.