IVV vs LEO
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals Inc
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | LEO | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.98% | |
| AUM | $886.7B | $496M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 4.49% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 262 | |
| YTD Return | +12.13% | -0.44% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.37% | +9.26% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.91% | +6.78% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.59% | -4.06% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 12.7% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -58.0% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | BNY Mellon Investment Management | |
| Category | Equity | Tax Preferred | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Sep 23, 1987 |
IVV vs LEO Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals Inc (LEO) is a ETF from BNY Mellon Investment Management. Over the past year IVV returned +20.37% while LEO returned +9.26%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.13% versus a loss of 0.44% for LEO.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.91% per year against +6.78% for LEO; over five years the annualized figures are +12.59% and -4.06% respectively. Across the full 26-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +6.97% annualized vs -0.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 12.7% for LEO. 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 -58.0% for LEO. 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 0.29. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while LEO charges 0.98%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $98 annually, a gap of $95 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 4.49% for LEO.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and LEO share 0 holdings out of 631 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or LEO?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while LEO charges 0.98%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $95 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or LEO?
Over the past year IVV returned +20.37% vs +9.26% for LEO, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (26 years), IVV annualized +6.97% vs -0.65% for LEO. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or LEO?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 12.7% for LEO. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs LEO -58.0%.
Should I hold both IVV and LEO?
IVV and LEO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.29, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and LEO?
IVV and LEO share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 631 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or LEO?
IVV yields 1.10% while LEO yields 4.49%, so LEO 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.