IVV vs MIGO

IVV vs MIGO

Which is better, IVV or MIGO?

IVV costs less.

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.4%.

Lower Fees: IVVLess Concentrated: IVV

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

MetricIVVMIGO
Expense Ratio0.03%Best0.45%
AUM$886.7B$776M
Dividend Yield1.10%-
Holdings50849
YTD Return+12.70%+19.90%Best
1Y Return+19.36%-
3Y Return (annualized)+21.16%-
5Y Return (annualized)+12.75%-
Top 10 Weight37.9%Best55.4%
Fund FamilyiShares by BlackRock (US)MIG Capital, LLC
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Blend
InceptionMay 15, 2000Feb 20, 2026

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

IVV vs MIGO 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 MIGO Performance

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and MIG Core ETF (MIGO) is an ETF from MIG Capital, LLC. Year to date, IVV is up 12.70% versus a gain of 19.90% for MIGO.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

IVV charges 0.03% per year while MIGO charges 0.45%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $45 annually, a gap of $42 per year that compounds over a long holding period.

Holdings Overlap

IVV already in MIGO30.7%
MIGO already in IVV39.9%

30.7% of IVV's money is in holdings MIGO also owns. 39.9% of MIGO's money is in holdings IVV also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

The two holdings books were reported 127 days apart, IVV as of Aug 5, 2026 and MIGO as of Mar 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.

20 positions in common, counted across the 504 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 42 in MIGO, against full books of 508 and 49.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 17 positions for MIGO that do not appear in our book for IVV (50.0% of the fund), and 473 for IVV that do not appear in MIGO (68.5%).

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 MIGODifference
MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 375.44%3.87%1.57%
NVDANvidia Corp.7.98%0.78%7.20%
AVGOBroadcom Inc2.98%5.01%2.03%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc4.01%3.49%0.52%
GOOGAlphabet, Inc., Class C2.56%3.59%1.03%
METAMeta Platform Inc 1.94%3.69%1.75%
MUMicron Technology, Inc.1.51%1.91%0.40%
LLYEli Lilly & Co.1.39%2.00%0.61%
WDCWestern Digital Corp Company Guar 11/28 30.27%2.51%2.24%
STXSeagate Technology Holdings Plc0.28%2.32%2.04%

39.9% of MIGO 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.

IVVMIGO

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IVV or MIGO?

IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while MIGO charges 0.45%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $42 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between IVV and MIGO?

39.9% of MIGO's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 39.9% of MIGO's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 20 positions in common, counted across the 504 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 42 in MIGO.

Is MIGO better than IVV?

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.