IVV vs MBCC
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Monarch Blue Chips Core Index ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | MBCC | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 1.14% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $184M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 0.35% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 26 | |
| YTD Return | +13.72% | +7.90% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.64% | +13.18% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.55% | +15.61% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.27% | +8.49% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 16.5% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -30.6% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Monarch Funds | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Mar 23, 2021 |
IVV vs MBCC Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Monarch Blue Chips Core Index ETF (MBCC) is a ETF from Monarch Funds. Over the past year IVV returned +21.64% while MBCC returned +13.18%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.72% versus a gain of 7.90% for MBCC.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.55% per year against +15.61% for MBCC; over five years the annualized figures are +13.27% and +8.49% respectively. Across the full 5-year window we track, MBCC has the edge at +9.79% annualized vs +7.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MBCC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.5% 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 -56.5% for IVV and -30.6% for MBCC. 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 0.95. 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 MBCC charges 1.14%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $114 annually, a gap of $111 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 0.35% for MBCC.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and MBCC share 24 holdings out of 505 unique holdings combined, representing a 30.4% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or MBCC?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while MBCC charges 1.14%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $111 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or MBCC?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.64% vs +13.18% for MBCC, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (5 years), IVV annualized +7.04% vs +9.79% for MBCC. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or MBCC?
MBCC has been the more volatile fund at 16.5% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs MBCC -30.6%.
Should I hold both IVV and MBCC?
IVV and MBCC have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and MBCC?
IVV and MBCC share 24 common holdings with a 30.4% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 505 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or MBCC?
IVV yields 1.09% while MBCC yields 0.35%, so IVV 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.