IVV vs JQTY
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Jensen US Quality Index ETF
Which is better, IVV or JQTY?
IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. JQTY is less concentrated, with 32.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.8%.
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 | JQTY |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.25% |
| AUM | $850.0B | $4M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 1,018 | 100 |
| YTD Return | +8.54%Best | -0.03% |
| 1Y Return | +10.97% | - |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.51% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.97% | - |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.8% | 32.2%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Jensen Funds |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Sep 30, 2026 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
IVV vs JQTY 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
IVV vs JQTY Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Jensen US Quality Index ETF (JQTY) is an ETF from Jensen Funds. Year to date, IVV is up 8.54% versus a loss of 0.03% for JQTY.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while JQTY charges 0.25%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $25 annually, a gap of $22 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 0.00% for JQTY.
Holdings Overlap
56.7% of IVV's money is in holdings JQTY also owns. 99.5% of JQTY's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of JQTY is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
99 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 100 in JQTY, against full books of 1,018 and 100.
What only one of them owns
Measured across the 505 and 100 positions we hold weights for.
IVV holds 400 positions JQTY does not, 42.9% of the fund.
Largest: GOOG 2.45%, MU 1.55%, TSLA 1.55%, BRK.B 1.47%, AMD 1.40%
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in IVV | Weight in JQTY | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.04% | 4.49% | 3.55% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.51% | 4.97% | 2.54% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.95% | 4.91% | 1.04% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.74% | 3.39% | 0.35% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.06% | 3.24% | 0.18% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.44% | 2.50% | 0.06% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.47% | 2.45% | 0.02% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co | 1.45% | 2.44% | 0.99% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 1.00% | 1.88% | 0.88% |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 0.78% | 1.95% | 1.17% |
99.5% of JQTY 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 JQTY?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while JQTY charges 0.25%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $22 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and JQTY?
99.5% of JQTY's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 99.5% of JQTY's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 99 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 100 in JQTY.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or JQTY?
IVV yields 1.09% while JQTY yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is JQTY better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. JQTY is less concentrated, with 32.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.