IVV vs LOWV
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs AB US Low Volatility Equity ETF
Which is better, IVV or LOWV?
Large Cap Blend against Mid Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.8%.
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 | LOWV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.39% |
| AUM | $886.7B | $209M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 0.86% |
| Holdings | 508 | 72 |
| YTD Return | +13.86%Best | +8.31% |
| 1Y Return | +21.57%Best | +11.32% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.48%Best | +15.86% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.88% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.4% | 9.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -18.8% | -13.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.5 years | $20,815Best | $17,721 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9%Best | 41.8% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | AllianceBernstein L.P. |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Mid Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Mar 22, 2023 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.5 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 22, 2023 to Sep 3, 2026 (3.5 years).
IVV vs LOWV 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 3.5 years both funds cover.
IVV vs LOWV Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and AB US Low Volatility Equity ETF (LOWV) is an ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P.. Over the past year IVV returned +21.57% while LOWV returned +11.32%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.86% versus a gain of 8.31% for LOWV.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.48% per year against +15.86% for LOWV. Across the full 4-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +23.30% annualized vs +17.76%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.4% compared with 9.7% for LOWV. 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 -18.8% for IVV and -13.9% for LOWV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.92. 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 LOWV charges 0.39%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $39 annually, a gap of $36 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 0.86% for LOWV.
Holdings Overlap
46.5% of IVV's money is in holdings LOWV also owns. 84.1% of LOWV's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of LOWV is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
52 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 69 in LOWV, against full books of 508 and 72.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 10 positions for LOWV that do not appear in our book for IVV (8.1% of the fund), and 445 for IVV that do not appear in LOWV (52.8%).
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 LOWV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.98% | 6.07% | 1.91% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.86% | 6.34% | 0.52% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.44% | 5.63% | 0.19% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.56% | 6.16% | 3.60% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.01% | 3.79% | 0.22% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.98% | 4.75% | 1.77% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 0.72% | 2.62% | 1.90% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 0.92% | 2.28% | 1.36% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.45% | 1.69% | 0.24% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.39% | 1.69% | 0.30% |
84.1% of LOWV 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 LOWV?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while LOWV charges 0.39%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $36 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or LOWV?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.57% vs +11.32% for LOWV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IVV annualized +23.30% vs +17.76% for LOWV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or LOWV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 12.4% annualized versus 9.7% for LOWV. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs LOWV -13.9%.
Should I hold both IVV and LOWV?
IVV and LOWV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, 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.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and LOWV?
84.1% of LOWV's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 84.1% of LOWV's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 52 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 69 in LOWV.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or LOWV?
IVV yields 1.10% while LOWV yields 0.86%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is LOWV better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.