IVV vs LCLG
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF
Which is better, IVV or LCLG?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, LCLG over 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 44.0%.
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 | LCLG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.90% |
| AUM | $886.7B | $107M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 508 | 57 |
| YTD Return | +13.39%Best | +11.62% |
| 1Y Return | +20.08%Best | +16.02% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.29% | +24.71%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.88% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.2%Best | 19.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -18.8%Best | -25.8% |
| $10,000 over 4.1 years | $19,821 | $21,760Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9%Best | 44.0% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Logan Capital |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Aug 8, 2022 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.1 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 8, 2022 to Sep 4, 2026 (4.1 years).
IVV vs LCLG 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 4.1 years both funds cover.
IVV vs LCLG Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF (LCLG) is an ETF from Logan Capital. Over the past year IVV returned +20.08% while LCLG returned +16.02%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.39% versus a gain of 11.62% for LCLG.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.29% per year against +24.71% for LCLG. Across the full 4-year window we track, LCLG has the edge at +20.88% annualized vs +18.16%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LCLG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.7% compared with 14.2% 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 -18.8% for IVV and -25.8% for LCLG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.93. 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 LCLG charges 0.90%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $90 annually, a gap of $87 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 0.00% for LCLG.
Holdings Overlap
28.5% of IVV's money is in holdings LCLG also owns. 82.3% of LCLG's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of LCLG is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
39 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 56 in LCLG, against full books of 508 and 57.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 15 positions for LCLG that do not appear in our book for IVV (16.1% of the fund), and 459 for IVV that do not appear in LCLG (71.0%).
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 LCLG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.86% | 4.44% | 2.42% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.01% | 3.91% | 0.10% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.98% | 4.87% | 1.89% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.51% | 5.41% | 3.90% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc.Class A | 3.19% | 3.60% | 0.41% |
| APHAmphenol Corp. Class A | 0.32% | 5.74% | 5.42% |
| KLACKla Corp | 0.38% | 4.75% | 4.37% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.56% | 2.49% | 0.07% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 1.94% | 3.04% | 1.10% |
| FLEXFlex Ltd. Ordinary Shares | 0.07% | 4.71% | 4.64% |
82.3% of LCLG 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 LCLG?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while LCLG charges 0.90%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $87 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or LCLG?
Over the past year IVV returned +20.08% vs +16.02% for LCLG, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IVV annualized +18.16% vs +20.88% for LCLG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or LCLG?
LCLG has been the more volatile fund at 19.7% annualized versus 14.2% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs LCLG -25.8%.
Should I hold both IVV and LCLG?
IVV and LCLG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, 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 LCLG?
82.3% of LCLG's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 82.3% of LCLG's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 39 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 56 in LCLG.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or LCLG?
IVV yields 1.10% while LCLG yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is LCLG better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, LCLG over 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 44.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.