IVV vs IWC
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs iShares Microcap ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IWC delivered stronger 1-year returns. IWC offers more diversification with 1279 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | IWC | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.60% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $1.4B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 0.94% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 1,380 | |
| YTD Return | +13.43% | +25.25% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.61% | +51.41% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.47% | +23.03% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.26% | +7.48% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 21.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -65.2% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Aug 12, 2005 |
IVV vs IWC Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares Microcap ETF (IWC) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IVV returned +22.61% while IWC returned +51.41%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.43% versus a gain of 25.25% for IWC.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.47% per year against +23.03% for IWC; over five years the annualized figures are +13.26% and +7.48% respectively. Across the full 21-year window we track, IWC has the edge at +7.10% annualized vs +7.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.6% 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 -65.2% for IWC. 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 0.83. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while IWC charges 0.60%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $60 annually, a gap of $57 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 0.94% for IWC.
Holdings Overlap
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or IWC?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while IWC charges 0.60%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $57 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or IWC?
Over the past year IVV returned +22.61% vs +51.41% for IWC, so IWC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (21 years), IVV annualized +7.03% vs +7.10% for IWC. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or IWC?
IWC has been the more volatile fund at 21.6% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs IWC -65.2%.
Should I hold both IVV and IWC?
IVV and IWC have a monthly-return correlation of 0.83, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and IWC?
IVV and IWC share 2 common holdings with a 0.1% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 1782 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or IWC?
IVV yields 1.09% while IWC yields 0.94%, so IVV 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.