IVV vs MCH
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Matthews China Active 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 | MCH | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.79% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $23M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 1.72% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 65 | |
| YTD Return | +13.80% | +0.12% | |
| 1Y Return | +23.01% | +14.37% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.77% | +11.97% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.39% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 30.7% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -40.5% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Matthews Asia Funds | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jul 13, 2022 |
IVV vs MCH Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Matthews China Active ETF (MCH) is a ETF from Matthews Asia Funds. Over the past year IVV returned +23.01% while MCH returned +14.37%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.80% versus a gain of 0.12% for MCH.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.77% per year against +11.97% for MCH. Across the full 4-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.04% annualized vs +5.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MCH has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.7% 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 -40.5% for MCH. 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 0.36. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while MCH charges 0.79%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $79 annually, a gap of $76 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 1.72% for MCH.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and MCH share 0 holdings out of 560 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or MCH?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while MCH charges 0.79%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $76 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or MCH?
Over the past year IVV returned +23.01% vs +14.37% for MCH, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IVV annualized +7.04% vs +5.19% for MCH. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or MCH?
MCH has been the more volatile fund at 30.7% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs MCH -40.5%.
Should I hold both IVV and MCH?
IVV and MCH have a monthly-return correlation of 0.36, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and MCH?
IVV and MCH share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 560 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or MCH?
IVV yields 1.09% while MCH yields 1.72%, so MCH 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.