IVV vs MOO
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs VanEck Agribusiness ETF
Which is better, IVV or MOO?
Each has led over a different period.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, MOO over 1Y. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.1%.
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 | MOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.56% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $991M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 2.11% |
| Holdings | 508 | 51 |
| YTD Return | +12.24% | +19.01%Best |
| 1Y Return | +18.61% | +20.83%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.98%Best | +4.12% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.76%Best | +0.73% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.6%Best | 20.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5%Best | -69.5% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,230Best | $10,370 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9%Best | 59.1% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | VanEck |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Aug 31, 2007 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 5, 2007 to Sep 9, 2026 (19 years).
IVV vs MOO 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 19 years both funds cover.
IVV vs MOO Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO) is an ETF from VanEck. Over the past year IVV returned +18.61% while MOO returned +20.83%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.24% versus a gain of 19.01% for MOO.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.98% per year against +4.12% for MOO; over five years the annualized figures are +12.76% and +0.73% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +9.47% annualized vs +5.69%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MOO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.9% compared with 15.6% for IVV. 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 -69.5% for MOO. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.72. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while MOO charges 0.56%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $56 annually, a gap of $53 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 2.11% for MOO.
Holdings Overlap
0.5% of IVV's money is in holdings MOO also owns. 40.7% of MOO's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
8 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 47 in MOO, against full books of 508 and 51.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 9 positions for MOO that do not appear in our book for IVV (11.5% of the fund), and 488 for IVV that do not appear in MOO (98.8%).
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 MOO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEDeere & Co Sedol 2261203 | 0.23% | 8.35% | 8.12% |
| CTVACorteva Inc Ctva | 0.08% | 8.07% | 7.99% |
| ZTSZoetis Inc, Class A | 0.05% | 5.25% | 5.20% |
| ADMArcher-Daniels-Midland Co. | 0.06% | 5.02% | 4.96% |
| CFCf Industries Holdings Inc. | 0.03% | 4.59% | 4.56% |
| TSNTyson Foods Inc. Class A | 0.02% | 4.31% | 4.29% |
| BGBunge Global Sa Common Shares | 0.02% | 3.28% | 3.26% |
| MOSMosaic Co. | 0.01% | 1.79% | 1.78% |
40.7% of MOO 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 MOO?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while MOO charges 0.56%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $53 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or MOO?
Over the past year IVV returned +18.61% vs +20.83% for MOO, so MOO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), IVV annualized +9.47% vs +5.69% for MOO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or MOO?
MOO has been the more volatile fund at 20.9% annualized versus 15.6% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs MOO -69.5%.
Should I hold both IVV and MOO?
IVV and MOO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.72, 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 MOO?
40.7% of MOO's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 40.7% of MOO's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 8 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 47 in MOO.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or MOO?
IVV yields 1.06% while MOO yields 2.11%, so MOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MOO better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, MOO over 1Y. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.1%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.