IVV vs MMCA
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs NYLI MacKay California Muni Intermediate 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 | MMCA | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.36% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $90M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 3.54% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 114 | |
| YTD Return | +13.43% | +0.32% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.61% | +4.09% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.47% | +3.81% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.26% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 6.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -16.0% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | New York Life Investments | |
| Category | Equity | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Dec 21, 2021 |
IVV vs MMCA Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and NYLI MacKay California Muni Intermediate ETF (MMCA) is a ETF from New York Life Investments. Over the past year IVV returned +22.61% while MMCA returned +4.09%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.43% versus a gain of 0.32% for MMCA.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.47% per year against +3.81% for MMCA. Across the full 5-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.03% annualized vs +0.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 6.4% for MMCA. 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 -16.0% for MMCA. 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 0.71. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while MMCA charges 0.36%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $36 annually, a gap of $33 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 3.54% for MMCA.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and MMCA share 0 holdings out of 532 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 MMCA?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while MMCA charges 0.36%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $33 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or MMCA?
Over the past year IVV returned +22.61% vs +4.09% for MMCA, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (5 years), IVV annualized +7.03% vs +0.02% for MMCA. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or MMCA?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 6.4% for MMCA. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs MMCA -16.0%.
Should I hold both IVV and MMCA?
IVV and MMCA have a monthly-return correlation of 0.71, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and MMCA?
IVV and MMCA share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 532 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or MMCA?
IVV yields 1.09% while MMCA yields 3.54%, so MMCA 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.