IVV vs JFLI
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs JPMorgan Flexible Income ETF
Which is better, IVV or JFLI?
Large Cap Blend against Allocation/Balanced.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 64.2%.
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 | JFLI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.35% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $48M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 7.24% |
| Holdings | 508 | 587 |
| YTD Return | +11.57%Best | +8.78% |
| 1Y Return | +17.57%Best | +13.77% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.71% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.80% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.2% | 8.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -18.8% | -12.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.6 years | $12,710Best | $12,058 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9%Best | 64.2% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | J.P. Morgan Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Allocation/Balanced |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Allocation/Balanced |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Feb 12, 2025 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.6 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 13, 2025 to Sep 10, 2026 (1.6 years).
IVV vs JFLI 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 1.6 years both funds cover.
IVV vs JFLI Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and JPMorgan Flexible Income ETF (JFLI) is an ETF from J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while JFLI returned +13.77%. Year to date, IVV is up 11.57% versus a gain of 8.78% for JFLI.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13.2% compared with 8.6% for JFLI. 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 -18.8% for IVV and -12.9% for JFLI. 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 JFLI charges 0.35%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $35 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 7.24% for JFLI.
Holdings Overlap
48.4% of IVV's money is in holdings JFLI also owns. 19.3% of JFLI's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
The two holdings books were reported 127 days apart, IVV as of Aug 5, 2026 and JFLI as of Mar 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
165 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 495 in JFLI, against full books of 508 and 587.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 50 positions for JFLI that do not appear in our book for IVV (63.8% of the fund), and 332 for IVV that do not appear in JFLI (51.0%).
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 JFLI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.98% | 0.23% | 7.75% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.44% | 0.49% | 4.95% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.98% | 0.44% | 2.54% |
| METAMeta Platforms, Inc. | 1.94% | 0.08% | 1.86% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.51% | 0.14% | 1.37% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.39% | 0.23% | 1.16% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.36% | 0.22% | 1.14% |
| TAt&t, Inc. | 0.24% | 1.22% | 0.98% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc. | 1.18% | 0.13% | 1.05% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 0.93% | 0.26% | 0.67% |
48.4% of IVV is already inside JFLI.
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 JFLI?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while JFLI charges 0.35%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $32 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or JFLI?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs +13.77% for JFLI, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), IVV annualized +16.17% vs +12.41% for JFLI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or JFLI?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 13.2% annualized versus 8.6% for JFLI. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs JFLI -12.9%.
Should I hold both IVV and JFLI?
IVV and JFLI 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 JFLI?
48.4% of IVV's money is in holdings JFLI also owns. 19.3% of JFLI's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 165 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 495 in JFLI.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or JFLI?
IVV yields 1.06% while JFLI yields 7.24%, so JFLI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is JFLI better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 64.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.