IVV vs IWL
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs iShares Russell Top 200 ETF
Which is better, IVV or IWL?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, IWL over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 43.3%.
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 | IWL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.15% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $2.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.83% |
| Holdings | 508 | 205 |
| YTD Return | +12.39%Best | +11.85% |
| 1Y Return | +16.61%Best | +16.17% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.38% | +22.20%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.51% | +14.03%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.4% | 14.2%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9% | -32.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,844 | $19,279Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8%Best | 43.3% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Sep 22, 2009 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 28, 2009 to Sep 18, 2026 (17 years).
IVV vs IWL 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 17 years both funds cover.
IVV vs IWL Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% while IWL returned +16.17%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.39% versus a gain of 11.85% for IWL.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.38% per year against +22.20% for IWL; over five years the annualized figures are +13.51% and +14.03% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, IWL has the edge at +13.13% annualized vs +12.84%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.4% compared with 14.2% for IWL. 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 -33.9% for IVV and -32.7% for IWL. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.99. 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 IWL 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 0.83% for IWL.
Holdings Overlap
85.5% of IVV's money is in holdings IWL also owns. 98.5% of IWL's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of IWL is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
189 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 202 in IWL, against full books of 508 and 205.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 11 positions for IWL that do not appear in our book for IVV (1.2% of the fund), and 293 for IVV that do not appear in IWL (13.1%).
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 IWL | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.07% | 9.02% | 0.95% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.02% | 8.02% | 1.00% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.69% | 6.60% | 0.91% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.84% | 4.41% | 0.57% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 3.46% | 0.46% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.65% | 3.02% | 0.37% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.39% | 2.79% | 0.40% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 2.20% | 0.30% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.63% | 1.89% | 0.26% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.56% | 1.88% | 0.32% |
98.5% of IWL is already inside IVV.
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 IWL?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while IWL charges 0.15%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $12 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or IWL?
Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% vs +16.17% for IWL, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), IVV annualized +12.84% vs +13.13% for IWL. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or IWL?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 14.4% annualized versus 14.2% for IWL. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs IWL -32.7%.
Should I hold both IVV and IWL?
IVV and IWL have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, 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 IWL?
98.5% of IWL's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 98.5% of IWL's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 189 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 202 in IWL.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or IWL?
IVV yields 1.06% while IWL yields 0.83%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWL better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, IWL over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 43.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.