IVV vs MOTO
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Guinness Atkinson Smart Transportation & Technology ETF
Which is better, IVV or MOTO?
Each has led over a different period.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y and 5Y, MOTO over 1Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 42.8%.
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 | MOTO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.68% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $9M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.91% |
| Holdings | 508 | 39 |
| YTD Return | +11.57% | +12.30%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.57% | +23.55%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.71%Best | +15.41% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.80%Best | +7.30% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9%Best | 24.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9%Best | -38.2% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,262Best | $14,223 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9%Best | 42.8% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | SmartETFs |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Nov 15, 2019 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 15, 2019 to Sep 10, 2026 (6.8 years).
IVV vs MOTO 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 6.8 years both funds cover.
IVV vs MOTO Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Guinness Atkinson Smart Transportation & Technology ETF (MOTO) is an ETF from SmartETFs. Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while MOTO returned +23.55%. Year to date, IVV is up 11.57% versus a gain of 12.30% for MOTO.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.71% per year against +15.41% for MOTO; over five years the annualized figures are +12.80% and +7.30% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, MOTO has the edge at +15.19% annualized vs +15.18%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MOTO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 24.8% compared with 16.9% 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 -38.2% for MOTO. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.88. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while MOTO charges 0.68%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $68 annually, a gap of $65 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.91% for MOTO.
Holdings Overlap
12.9% of IVV's money is in holdings MOTO also owns. 36.2% of MOTO's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
11 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 38 in MOTO, against full books of 508 and 39.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 8 positions for MOTO that do not appear in our book for IVV (17.2% of the fund), and 484 for IVV that do not appear in MOTO (86.4%).
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 MOTO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.98% | 4.68% | 3.30% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.56% | 4.02% | 1.46% |
| PWRQuanta Services, Inc. | 0.15% | 4.95% | 4.80% |
| APHAmphenol Corp. Class A | 0.32% | 4.61% | 4.29% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.36% | 3.01% | 1.65% |
| ADIAnalog Devices, Inc. | 0.28% | 3.95% | 3.67% |
| TELTE Connectivity PLC Common Stock | 0.10% | 3.09% | 2.99% |
| NXPINxp Semiconductors N.V. Common Stock | 0.09% | 2.77% | 2.68% |
| ONOn Semiconductor Corp | 0.05% | 2.35% | 2.30% |
| SWKSSkyworks Solutions Inc. | 0.02% | 1.53% | 1.51% |
36.2% of MOTO 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 MOTO?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while MOTO charges 0.68%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $65 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or MOTO?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs +23.55% for MOTO, so MOTO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), IVV annualized +15.18% vs +15.19% for MOTO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or MOTO?
MOTO has been the more volatile fund at 24.8% annualized versus 16.9% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs MOTO -38.2%.
Should I hold both IVV and MOTO?
IVV and MOTO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.88, 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 MOTO?
36.2% of MOTO's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 36.2% of MOTO's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 11 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 38 in MOTO.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or MOTO?
IVV yields 1.06% while MOTO yields 0.91%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MOTO better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y and 5Y, MOTO over 1Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 42.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.