IVV vs LCTD
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs iShares World ex US Carbon Transition Readiness Aware Active ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | LCTD | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.22% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $282M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 3.39% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 367 | |
| YTD Return | +13.72% | +11.41% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.64% | +21.10% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.55% | +16.98% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.27% | +7.99% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -29.8% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Apr 6, 2021 |
IVV vs LCTD Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares World ex US Carbon Transition Readiness Aware Active ETF (LCTD) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IVV returned +21.64% while LCTD returned +21.10%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.72% versus a gain of 11.41% for LCTD.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.55% per year against +16.98% for LCTD; over five years the annualized figures are +13.27% and +7.99% respectively. Across the full 5-year window we track, LCTD has the edge at +8.54% annualized vs +7.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LCTD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.3% compared with 15.1% 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 -56.5% for IVV and -29.8% for LCTD. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.79. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while LCTD charges 0.22%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $22 annually, a gap of $19 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 3.39% for LCTD.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and LCTD share 4 holdings out of 847 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.3% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or LCTD?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while LCTD charges 0.22%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $19 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or LCTD?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.64% vs +21.10% for LCTD, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (5 years), IVV annualized +7.04% vs +8.54% for LCTD. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or LCTD?
LCTD has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs LCTD -29.8%.
Should I hold both IVV and LCTD?
IVV and LCTD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.79, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and LCTD?
IVV and LCTD share 4 common holdings with a 0.3% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 847 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or LCTD?
IVV yields 1.09% while LCTD yields 3.39%, so LCTD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.