IVV vs IYM
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs iShares US Basic Materials ETF
Which is better, IVV or IYM?
Each has led over a different period.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y and 5Y, IYM over 1Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 67.8%.
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 | IYM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.38% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $1.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 1.21% |
| Holdings | 508 | 43 |
| YTD Return | +12.24% | +21.96%Best |
| 1Y Return | +18.61% | +31.12%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.98%Best | +14.92% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.76%Best | +9.56% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1%Best | 22.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5%Best | -68.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,230Best | $15,786 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9%Best | 67.8% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jun 12, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 20, 2000 to Sep 9, 2026 (26.2 years).
IVV vs IYM 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 26.2 years both funds cover.
IVV vs IYM Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares US Basic Materials ETF (IYM) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IVV returned +18.61% while IYM returned +31.12%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.24% versus a gain of 21.96% for IYM.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.98% per year against +14.92% for IYM; over five years the annualized figures are +12.76% and +9.56% respectively. Across the full 26-year window we track, IYM has the edge at +7.04% annualized vs +6.79%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IYM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.2% 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 -68.1% for IYM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.80. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while IYM charges 0.38%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $38 annually, a gap of $35 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 1.21% for IYM.
Holdings Overlap
1.4% of IVV's money is in holdings IYM also owns. 72.7% of IYM's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of IYM is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
16 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 40 in IYM, against full books of 508 and 43.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 21 positions for IYM that do not appear in our book for IVV (23.1% of the fund), and 480 for IVV that do not appear in IYM (97.9%).
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 IYM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| LINLinde Plc Ordinary Shares | 0.34% | 19.78% | 19.44% |
| NEMNewmont Corp Common | 0.17% | 9.78% | 9.61% |
| FCXFreeport-mcmoran Copper & Gold Inc. | 0.15% | 8.74% | 8.59% |
| ECLEcolab, Inc. | 0.11% | 6.27% | 6.16% |
| APDAir Products & Chemicals Inc. | 0.10% | 4.74% | 4.64% |
| NUENucor Corp. | 0.09% | 4.58% | 4.49% |
| FASTFastenal Co. | 0.09% | 4.44% | 4.35% |
| STLDSteel Dynamics, Inc. | 0.05% | 3.13% | 3.08% |
| IFFInternational Flavors & Fragrances Inc. | 0.03% | 2.22% | 2.19% |
| IPInternational Paper Co. | 0.03% | 2.19% | 2.16% |
72.7% of IYM 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 IYM?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while IYM charges 0.38%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $35 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or IYM?
Over the past year IVV returned +18.61% vs +31.12% for IYM, so IYM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (26 years), IVV annualized +6.79% vs +7.04% for IYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or IYM?
IYM has been the more volatile fund at 22.2% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs IYM -68.1%.
Should I hold both IVV and IYM?
IVV and IYM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.80, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and IYM?
72.7% of IYM's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 72.7% of IYM's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 16 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 40 in IYM.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or IYM?
IVV yields 1.06% while IYM yields 1.21%, so IYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IYM better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y and 5Y, IYM over 1Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 67.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.