IVV vs MGIN

IVV vs MGIN

Which is better, IVV or MGIN?

Large Cap Blend against Mid Cap Growth.

IVV has a lower expense ratio. MGIN is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.9%.

Lower Fees: IVVLess Concentrated: MGIN

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

MetricIVVMGIN
Expense Ratio0.03%Best0.75%
AUM$896.5B-
Dividend Yield1.10%0.00%
Holdings50850
YTD Return+13.49%Best-0.36%
1Y Return+15.85%-
3Y Return (annualized)+23.93%-
5Y Return (annualized)+12.76%-
Top 10 Weight38.9%32.7%Best
Fund FamilyiShares by BlackRock (US)Man Solutions LLC
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendMid Cap Growth
InceptionMay 15, 2000Sep 23, 2026

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

IVV vs MGIN 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

IVV vs MGIN Performance

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Man Active Global Infrastructure ETF (MGIN) is an ETF from Man Solutions LLC. Year to date, IVV is up 13.49% versus a loss of 0.36% for MGIN.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

IVV charges 0.03% per year while MGIN 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 0.00% for MGIN.

Holdings Overlap

IVV already in MGIN1.3%
MGIN already in IVV24.9%

1.3% of IVV's money is in holdings MGIN also owns. 24.9% of MGIN's money is in holdings IVV also owns.

MGIN and IVV share little of their money.

13 positions in common, counted across the 506 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 50 in MGIN, against full books of 508 and 50.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 20 positions for MGIN that do not appear in our book for IVV (31.9% of the fund), and 487 for IVV that do not appear in MGIN (98.2%).

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

StockWeight in IVVWeight in MGINDifference
WMBWilliams Cos. Inc.0.13%3.07%2.94%
PSAPublic Storage0.07%2.93%2.86%
VZVerizon Communic0.29%2.67%2.38%
VTRVentas  Inc .0.06%2.86%2.80%
PLDPrologis Inc0.18%1.93%1.75%
TRGPTarga Resources Corp Preferred0.09%2.02%1.93%
DOCHealthpeak Properties Inc0.02%1.81%1.79%
EXRExtra Space Storage Inc0.04%1.47%1.43%
KMIKinder Morgan Inc./de0.09%1.29%1.20%
OKEOneok0.08%1.25%1.17%

24.9% of MGIN 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.

IVVMGIN

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IVV or MGIN?

IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while MGIN charges 0.75%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $72 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between IVV and MGIN?

24.9% of MGIN's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 24.9% of MGIN's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 13 positions in common, counted across the 506 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 50 in MGIN.

Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or MGIN?

IVV yields 1.10% while MGIN yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is MGIN better than IVV?

IVV has a lower expense ratio. MGIN is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.