IVV vs LCR

IVV vs LCR

Which is better, IVV or LCR?

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 0.96. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 66.4%.

Lower Fees: IVVHigher Returns: IVVLess Concentrated: 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

MetricIVVLCR
Expense Ratio0.03%Best0.83%
AUM$876.4B$69M
Dividend Yield1.06%1.32%
Holdings50836
Volatility (annualized)18.3%10.1%Best
Max Drawdown-33.9%-17.4%Best
$10,000 over 5 years$19,492Best$14,558
Top 10 Weight37.9%Best66.4%
Fund FamilyiShares by BlackRock (US)Leuthold Funds
CategoryEquityAllocation/Balanced
StyleLarge Cap BlendAllocation/Balanced
InceptionMay 15, 2000Jan 3, 2020

Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized).

The two price series end 601 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. IVV has data through Sep 10, 2026 and LCR through Jan 17, 2025.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 5 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 6, 2020 to Jan 17, 2025 (5 years).

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.3% compared with 10.1% for LCR. 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 -33.9% for IVV and -17.4% for LCR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. 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 LCR charges 0.83%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $83 annually, a gap of $80 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 1.32% for LCR.

Holdings Overlap

We hold position weights for 505 holdings in IVV and 34 in LCR, totalling 100.0% and 100.0% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.

0 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 34 in LCR, against full books of 508 and 36.

What only one of them owns

Measured across the 505 and 34 positions we hold weights for.

IVV holds 495 positions LCR does not, 99.3% of the fund.

Largest: NVDA 7.98%, AAPL 6.86%, MSFT 5.44%, AMZN 4.01%, GOOGL 3.19%

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

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

IVVLCR

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IVV or LCR?

IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while LCR charges 0.83%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $80 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which is riskier, IVV or LCR?

IVV has been the more volatile fund at 18.3% annualized versus 10.1% for LCR. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs LCR -17.4%.

Should I hold both IVV and LCR?

IVV and LCR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, 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 LCR?

IVV yields 1.06% while LCR yields 1.32%, so LCR currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is LCR 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 0.96. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 66.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.