IVV vs IWP
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs iShares Russell Midcap Growth ETF
Which is better, IVV or IWP?
Large Cap Blend against Mid Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y, IWP over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. IWP is less concentrated, with 20.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%.
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 | IWP |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.23% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $19.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 508 | 271 |
| YTD Return | +12.51%Best | +0.00% |
| 1Y Return | +17.57%Best | -4.85% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.27%Best | +13.78% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.95%Best | +3.95% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.9%Best | 18.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5%Best | -57.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,384Best | $12,137 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9% | 20.3%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Mid Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jul 17, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 1, 2001 to Sep 11, 2026 (25.1 years).
IVV vs IWP 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 25.1 years both funds cover.
IVV vs IWP Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares Russell Midcap Growth ETF (IWP) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while IWP returned -4.85%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.51% versus a gain of 0.00% for IWP.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.27% per year against +13.78% for IWP; over five years the annualized figures are +12.95% and +3.95% respectively. Across the full 25-year window we track, IWP has the edge at +8.45% annualized vs +7.93%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWP has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.4% compared with 14.9% 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 -57.3% for IWP. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.91. 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 IWP charges 0.23%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $23 annually, a gap of $20 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.35% for IWP.
Holdings Overlap
4.7% of IVV's money is in holdings IWP also owns. 49.2% of IWP's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
82 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 265 in IWP, against full books of 508 and 271.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 169 positions for IWP that do not appear in our book for IVV (46.8% of the fund), and 413 for IVV that do not appear in IWP (94.7%).
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 IWP | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| DDOGDatadog Inc. Class A | 0.14% | 2.63% | 2.49% |
| SPGSimon Property Group Inc | 0.11% | 2.03% | 1.92% |
| TERTeradyne Inc | 0.09% | 1.72% | 1.63% |
| FIXComfort Systems USA Inc. | 0.09% | 1.71% | 1.62% |
| HOODRobinhood Markets Inc - A | 0.11% | 1.67% | 1.56% |
| LITELumentum Holdings Inc | 0.10% | 1.66% | 1.56% |
| CORCencora Inc | 0.09% | 1.67% | 1.58% |
| TRGPTarga Resources Corp. | 0.08% | 1.56% | 1.48% |
| ADSKAutodesk, Inc. | 0.08% | 1.43% | 1.35% |
| GWWWw Grainger Inc. | 0.08% | 1.35% | 1.27% |
49.2% of IWP 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 IWP?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while IWP charges 0.23%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $20 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or IWP?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs -4.85% for IWP, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (25 years), IVV annualized +7.93% vs +8.45% for IWP. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or IWP?
IWP has been the more volatile fund at 18.4% annualized versus 14.9% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs IWP -57.3%.
Should I hold both IVV and IWP?
IVV and IWP have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, 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 IWP?
49.2% of IWP's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 49.2% of IWP's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 82 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 265 in IWP.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or IWP?
IVV yields 1.06% while IWP yields 0.35%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWP better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y, IWP over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. IWP is less concentrated, with 20.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.