IVV vs MNA
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs NYLIM Merger Arbitrage ETF
Which is better, IVV or MNA?
Large Cap Blend against Multi Alternative.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. MNA is less concentrated, with 33.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%.
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
| Metric | IVV | MNA |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.77% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $256M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 508 | 92 |
| YTD Return | +13.23%Best | +2.79% |
| 1Y Return | +17.38%Best | +2.48% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.67%Best | +5.66% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.13%Best | +2.55% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.4% | 4.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9% | -16.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,531Best | $11,342 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8% | 33.7%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | New York Life Investments |
| Category | Equity | Alternative |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Nov 17, 2009 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 17, 2009 to Sep 24, 2026 (16.9 years).
IVV vs MNA 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 MNA Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and NYLIM Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) is an ETF from New York Life Investments. Over the past year IVV returned +17.38% while MNA returned +2.48%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.23% versus a gain of 2.79% for MNA.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.67% per year against +5.66% for MNA; over five years the annualized figures are +13.13% and +2.55% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +12.68% 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 14.4% 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 -33.9% for IVV and -16.7% for MNA. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.42. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
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 1.06% against 0.00% for MNA.
Holdings Overlap
0.3% of IVV's money is in holdings MNA also owns. 14.3% of MNA's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
MNA and IVV share little of their money.
6 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 60 in MNA, against full books of 508 and 92.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 36 positions for MNA that do not appear in our book for IVV (51.5% of the fund), and 476 for IVV that do not appear in MNA (98.3%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IVV and MNA you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
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, by $74 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or MNA?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.38% vs +2.48% for MNA, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), IVV annualized +12.68% vs +2.70% for MNA. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or MNA?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 14.4% annualized versus 4.8% for MNA. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs MNA -16.7%.
Should I hold both IVV and MNA?
IVV and MNA have a monthly-return correlation of 0.42, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and MNA?
14.3% of MNA's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 14.3% of MNA's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 6 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 60 in MNA.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or MNA?
IVV yields 1.06% while MNA yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MNA better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. MNA is less concentrated, with 33.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.