IVV vs LGI
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Lazard Global Total Return and Income Fund
Which is better, IVV or LGI?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. LGI is less concentrated, with 35.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%.
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 | LGI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 1.72% |
| AUM | $876.4B | - |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 9.75% |
| Holdings | 508 | 108 |
| YTD Return | +12.39%Best | +6.22% |
| 1Y Return | +16.61%Best | +7.94% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.38%Best | +17.60% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.51%Best | +6.70% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.7%Best | 19.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5%Best | -67.2% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,844Best | $13,830 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8% | 35.6%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Lazard Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Apr 28, 2004 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 24, 2004 to Sep 18, 2026 (22.3 years).
IVV vs LGI 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 22.3 years both funds cover.
IVV vs LGI Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Lazard Global Total Return and Income Fund (LGI) is an ETF from Lazard Asset Management. Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% while LGI returned +7.94%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.39% versus a gain of 6.22% for LGI.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.38% per year against +17.60% for LGI; over five years the annualized figures are +13.51% and +6.70% respectively. Across the full 22-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +9.45% annualized vs +1.69%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LGI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.5% compared with 14.7% 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 -67.2% for LGI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.85. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while LGI charges 1.72%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $172 annually, a gap of $169 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 9.75% for LGI.
Holdings Overlap
27.2% of IVV's money is in holdings LGI also owns. 45.8% of LGI's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
The two holdings books were reported 62 days apart, IVV as of Aug 31, 2026 and LGI as of Jun 30, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
28 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 69 in LGI, against full books of 508 and 108.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 5 positions for LGI that do not appear in our book for IVV (8.2% of the fund), and 455 for IVV that do not appear in LGI (71.6%).
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 LGI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.02% | 4.06% | 2.96% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.69% | 2.74% | 2.95% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.84% | 3.04% | 0.80% |
| KLACKla Corp | 0.35% | 4.66% | 4.31% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 2.00% | 1.00% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 0.95% | 2.18% | 1.23% |
| APHAmphenol Corp. Class A | 0.29% | 2.79% | 2.50% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 0.70% | 1.20% |
| SCHWSchwab Strategic T | 0.27% | 2.19% | 1.92% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 0.52% | 1.69% | 1.17% |
45.8% of LGI 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 LGI?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while LGI charges 1.72%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $169 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or LGI?
Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% vs +7.94% for LGI, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (22 years), IVV annualized +9.45% vs +1.69% for LGI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or LGI?
LGI has been the more volatile fund at 19.5% annualized versus 14.7% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs LGI -67.2%.
Should I hold both IVV and LGI?
IVV and LGI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.85, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and LGI?
45.8% of LGI's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 45.8% of LGI's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 28 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 69 in LGI.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or LGI?
IVV yields 1.06% while LGI yields 9.75%, so LGI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is LGI better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. LGI is less concentrated, with 35.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.