IVV vs MODL
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs VictoryShares WestEnd US Sector ETF
Which is better, IVV or MODL?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. MODL is less concentrated, with 34.1% 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 | MODL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.46% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $1.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.66% |
| Holdings | 508 | 363 |
| YTD Return | +12.27%Best | +10.73% |
| 1Y Return | +17.04%Best | +14.98% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.24%Best | +20.31% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.08% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.0% | 12.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -18.8% | -17.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.9 years | $22,398Best | $21,648 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8% | 34.1%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Victory Capital Management Inc. |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Oct 11, 2022 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 12, 2022 to Sep 17, 2026 (3.9 years).
IVV vs MODL 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 covers the 3.9 years both funds cover.
IVV vs MODL Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and VictoryShares WestEnd US Sector ETF (MODL) is an ETF from Victory Capital Management Inc.. Over the past year IVV returned +17.04% while MODL returned +14.98%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.27% versus a gain of 10.73% for MODL.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.24% per year against +20.31% for MODL. Across the full 4-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +22.97% annualized vs +21.90%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13.0% compared with 12.4% for MODL. 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 -18.8% for IVV and -17.6% for MODL. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.98. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while MODL charges 0.46%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $46 annually, a gap of $43 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.66% for MODL.
Holdings Overlap
80.7% of IVV's money is in holdings MODL also owns. 93.8% of MODL's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of MODL is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
292 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 361 in MODL, against full books of 508 and 363.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 59 positions for MODL that do not appear in our book for IVV (4.4% of the fund), and 193 for IVV that do not appear in MODL (18.0%).
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
| Stock | Weight in IVV | Weight in MODL | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.07% | 6.41% | 1.66% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.02% | 6.02% | 1.00% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.69% | 4.62% | 1.07% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 3.08% | 0.08% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.84% | 2.05% | 1.79% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.39% | 2.66% | 0.27% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.65% | 2.21% | 0.44% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 1.98% | 0.08% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.44% | 2.29% | 0.85% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.38% | 2.09% | 0.71% |
93.8% of MODL 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.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or MODL?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while MODL charges 0.46%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $43 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or MODL?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.04% vs +14.98% for MODL, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IVV annualized +22.97% vs +21.90% for MODL. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or MODL?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 13.0% annualized versus 12.4% for MODL. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs MODL -17.6%.
Should I hold both IVV and MODL?
IVV and MODL have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and MODL?
93.8% of MODL's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 93.8% of MODL's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 292 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 361 in MODL.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or MODL?
IVV yields 1.06% while MODL yields 0.66%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MODL better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. MODL is less concentrated, with 34.1% 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.