IVV vs MNA
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs NYLI Merger Arbitrage 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 | MNA | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.77% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $252M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 1.21% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 101 | |
| YTD Return | +14.50% | +2.45% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.02% | +2.68% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.80% | +5.88% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.37% | +2.33% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 4.8% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -16.7% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | INDEXIQ ETF TRUST | |
| Category | Equity | Alternative | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Nov 17, 2009 |
IVV vs MNA Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and NYLI Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) is a ETF from INDEXIQ ETF TRUST. Over the past year IVV returned +22.02% while MNA returned +2.68%. Year to date, IVV is up 14.50% versus a gain of 2.45% for MNA.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.80% per year against +5.88% for MNA; over five years the annualized figures are +13.37% and +2.33% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.07% annualized vs +2.70%. 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 4.8% for MNA. 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 -16.7% for MNA. 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 0.42. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while MNA charges 0.77%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $77 annually, a gap of $74 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 1.21% for MNA.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and MNA share 6 holdings out of 559 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.4% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or MNA?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while MNA charges 0.77%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $74 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or MNA?
Over the past year IVV returned +22.02% vs +2.68% for MNA, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), IVV annualized +7.07% vs +2.70% for MNA. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or MNA?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 4.8% for MNA. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs MNA -16.7%.
Should I hold both IVV and MNA?
IVV and MNA have a monthly-return correlation of 0.42, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and MNA?
IVV and MNA share 6 common holdings with a 0.4% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 559 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or MNA?
IVV yields 1.09% while MNA yields 1.21%, so MNA 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.