IVV vs LRGF
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs iShares US Equity Factor ETF
Which is better, IVV or LRGF?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window, LRGF over 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. LRGF is less concentrated, with 34.9% 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 | LRGF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.08% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $3.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 1.05% |
| Holdings | 508 | 298 |
| YTD Return | +11.03% | +11.62%Best |
| 1Y Return | +15.62%Best | +14.20% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.81% | +21.39%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.61% | +13.44%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1%Best | 15.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9%Best | -36.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,109 | $18,786Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8% | 34.9%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Apr 28, 2015 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 30, 2015 to Sep 16, 2026 (11.4 years).
IVV vs LRGF 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 11.4 years both funds cover.
IVV vs LRGF Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares US Equity Factor ETF (LRGF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IVV returned +15.62% while LRGF returned +14.20%. Year to date, IVV is up 11.03% versus a gain of 11.62% for LRGF.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.81% per year against +21.39% for LRGF; over five years the annualized figures are +12.61% and +13.44% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +12.70% annualized vs +11.28%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LRGF 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 -33.9% for IVV and -36.0% for LRGF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.98. 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 LRGF charges 0.08%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $8 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 1.05% for LRGF.
Holdings Overlap
80.6% of IVV's money is in holdings LRGF also owns. 88.8% of LRGF's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of LRGF is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
202 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 289 in LRGF, against full books of 508 and 298.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 79 positions for LRGF that do not appear in our book for IVV (9.6% of the fund), and 281 for IVV that do not appear in LRGF (18.1%).
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 LRGF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.07% | 7.56% | 0.51% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.02% | 6.52% | 0.50% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.69% | 5.16% | 0.53% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.84% | 3.16% | 0.68% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.39% | 3.89% | 1.50% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.65% | 2.75% | 0.10% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 0.94% | 2.06% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 1.69% | 0.21% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.44% | 1.57% | 0.13% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.63% | 1.36% | 0.27% |
88.8% of LRGF 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 LRGF?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while LRGF charges 0.08%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $5 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or LRGF?
Over the past year IVV returned +15.62% vs +14.20% for LRGF, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), IVV annualized +12.70% vs +11.28% for LRGF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or LRGF?
LRGF has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs LRGF -36.0%.
Should I hold both IVV and LRGF?
IVV and LRGF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, 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 LRGF?
88.8% of LRGF's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 88.8% of LRGF's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 202 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 289 in LRGF.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or LRGF?
IVV yields 1.06% while LRGF yields 1.05%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is LRGF better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window, LRGF over 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. LRGF is less concentrated, with 34.9% 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.