IVV vs JULP

IVV vs JULP

Which is better, IVV or JULP?

Large Cap Blend against Option Writing.

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94.

Lower Fees: IVVHigher Returns: IVV

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

MetricIVVJULP
Expense Ratio0.03%Best0.50%
AUM$876.4B$36M
Dividend Yield1.06%0.00%
Holdings5088
YTD Return+12.27%Best+7.67%
1Y Return+17.04%Best+10.89%
3Y Return (annualized)+21.24%-
5Y Return (annualized)+13.08%-
Volatility (annualized)11.8%6.8%Best
Max Drawdown-18.8%-12.4%Best
$10,000 over 2.4 years$15,277Best$13,352
Fund FamilyiShares by BlackRock (US)PGIM Investments
CategoryEquityAlternative
StyleLarge Cap BlendOption Writing
InceptionMay 15, 2000May 8, 2024

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.4 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: May 8, 2024 to Sep 17, 2026 (2.4 years).

IVV vs JULP 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 2.4 years both funds cover.

IVV vs JULP Performance

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - July (JULP) is an ETF from PGIM Investments. Over the past year IVV returned +17.04% while JULP returned +10.89%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.27% versus a gain of 7.67% for JULP.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 11.8% compared with 6.8% for JULP. 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 -12.4% for JULP. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.94. 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 JULP charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $50 annually, a gap of $47 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.00% for JULP.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of IVV and JULP you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

IVVJULP

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IVV or JULP?

IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while JULP charges 0.50%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $47 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, IVV or JULP?

Over the past year IVV returned +17.04% vs +10.89% for JULP, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), IVV annualized +19.31% vs +12.80% for JULP. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, IVV or JULP?

IVV has been the more volatile fund at 11.8% annualized versus 6.8% for JULP. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs JULP -12.4%.

Should I hold both IVV and JULP?

IVV and JULP have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, 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.

Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or JULP?

IVV yields 1.06% while JULP yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is JULP 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 0.94. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.