IVV vs LIT
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF
Which is better, IVV or LIT?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, LIT over 1Y. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 65.8%.
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 | LIT |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.75% |
| AUM | $886.7B | $1.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 0.72% |
| Holdings | 508 | 45 |
| YTD Return | +13.39%Best | +12.42% |
| 1Y Return | +20.08% | +58.87%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.29%Best | +8.38% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.88%Best | -1.88% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.2%Best | 28.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9%Best | -65.9% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,327Best | $9,095 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9%Best | 65.8% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Global X by mirae Asset |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jul 22, 2010 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 23, 2010 to Sep 4, 2026 (16.1 years).
IVV vs LIT 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 16.1 years both funds cover.
IVV vs LIT Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) is an ETF from Global X by mirae Asset. Over the past year IVV returned +20.08% while LIT returned +58.87%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.39% versus a gain of 12.42% for LIT.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.29% per year against +8.38% for LIT; over five years the annualized figures are +12.88% and -1.88% respectively. Across the full 16-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +13.36% annualized vs +5.59%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LIT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 28.3% 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 -33.9% for IVV and -65.9% for LIT. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.64. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while LIT charges 0.75%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $75 annually, a gap of $72 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 0.72% for LIT.
Holdings Overlap
1.4% of IVV's money is in holdings LIT also owns. 8.4% of LIT's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
LIT and IVV share little of their money.
2 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 41 in LIT, against full books of 508 and 45.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 3 positions for LIT that do not appear in our book for IVV (25.6% of the fund), and 495 for IVV that do not appear in LIT (98.0%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IVV and LIT you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or LIT?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while LIT charges 0.75%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $72 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or LIT?
Over the past year IVV returned +20.08% vs +58.87% for LIT, so LIT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (16 years), IVV annualized +13.36% vs +5.59% for LIT. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or LIT?
LIT has been the more volatile fund at 28.3% annualized versus 14.2% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs LIT -65.9%.
Should I hold both IVV and LIT?
IVV and LIT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.64, 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 LIT?
8.4% of LIT's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 8.4% of LIT's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 2 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 41 in LIT.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or LIT?
IVV yields 1.10% while LIT yields 0.72%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is LIT better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, LIT over 1Y. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 65.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.