IVV vs MOTG
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs VanEck Morningstar Global Wide Moat ETF
Which is better, IVV or MOTG?
IVV has been ahead.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. MOTG is less concentrated, with 21.6% 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 | MOTG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.52% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $18M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 2.28% |
| Holdings | 508 | 73 |
| YTD Return | +13.85%Best | +0.27% |
| 1Y Return | +18.57%Best | -11.52% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +23.50%Best | +9.95% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.34%Best | +3.27% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.7%Best | 16.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9% | -31.8%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,703Best | $11,745 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8% | 21.6%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | VanEck |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Oct 30, 2018 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 31, 2018 to Sep 25, 2026 (7.9 years).
IVV vs MOTG 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 7.9 years both funds cover.
IVV vs MOTG Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and VanEck Morningstar Global Wide Moat ETF (MOTG) is an ETF from VanEck. Over the past year IVV returned +18.57% while MOTG returned -11.52%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.85% versus a gain of 0.27% for MOTG.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +23.50% per year against +9.95% for MOTG; over five years the annualized figures are +13.34% and +3.27% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +15.28% annualized vs +8.72%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MOTG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.8% compared with 16.7% 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 -33.9% for IVV and -31.8% for MOTG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.86. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while MOTG charges 0.52%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $52 annually, a gap of $49 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 2.28% for MOTG.
Holdings Overlap
20.5% of IVV's money is in holdings MOTG also owns. 33.9% of MOTG's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
22 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 72 in MOTG, against full books of 508 and 73.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 5 positions for MOTG that do not appear in our book for IVV (5.4% of the fund), and 460 for IVV that do not appear in MOTG (78.2%).
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 MOTG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.07% | 2.09% | 5.98% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.69% | 2.32% | 3.37% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.65% | 1.87% | 0.78% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 1.79% | 0.11% |
| SCHWSchwab Strategic T | 0.27% | 2.26% | 1.99% |
| BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 0.21% | 2.22% | 2.01% |
| USBUS Bancorp | 0.14% | 2.17% | 2.03% |
| DHRDanaher Corporation | 0.20% | 2.06% | 1.86% |
| ELEstee Lauder Cos., Inc. | 0.04% | 2.13% | 2.09% |
| ZBHZimmer Biomet Holdings | 0.03% | 2.09% | 2.06% |
33.9% of MOTG 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 MOTG?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while MOTG charges 0.52%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $49 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or MOTG?
Over the past year IVV returned +18.57% vs -11.52% for MOTG, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), IVV annualized +15.28% vs +8.72% for MOTG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or MOTG?
MOTG has been the more volatile fund at 16.8% annualized versus 16.7% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs MOTG -31.8%.
Should I hold both IVV and MOTG?
IVV and MOTG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.86, 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 MOTG?
33.9% of MOTG's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 33.9% of MOTG's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 22 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 72 in MOTG.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or MOTG?
IVV yields 1.06% while MOTG yields 2.28%, so MOTG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MOTG better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. MOTG is less concentrated, with 21.6% 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.