IVV vs MRCP
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - March
Which is better, IVV or MRCP?
Large Cap Blend against Multi Alternative.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96.
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 | MRCP |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.50% |
| AUM | $882.6B | $29M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 508 | 16 |
| YTD Return | +13.60%Best | +10.37% |
| 1Y Return | +16.32%Best | +13.43% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +23.81% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +14.03% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 11.9% | 6.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -18.8% | -10.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.6 years | $15,561Best | $14,081 |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | PGIM Investments |
| Category | Equity | Alternative |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Feb 29, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.6 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 1, 2024 to Oct 2, 2026 (2.6 years).
IVV vs MRCP 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 2.6 years both funds cover.
IVV vs MRCP Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 12 ETF - March (MRCP) is an ETF from PGIM Investments. Over the past year IVV returned +16.32% while MRCP returned +13.43%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.60% versus a gain of 10.37% for MRCP.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 11.9% compared with 6.4% for MRCP. 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 -10.7% for MRCP. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. 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 MRCP charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $50 annually, a gap of $47 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.00% for MRCP.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IVV and MRCP 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 MRCP?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while MRCP charges 0.50%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $47 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or MRCP?
Over the past year IVV returned +16.32% vs +13.43% for MRCP, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or MRCP?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 11.9% annualized versus 6.4% for MRCP. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs MRCP -10.7%.
Should I hold both IVV and MRCP?
IVV and MRCP have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, 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.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or MRCP?
IVV yields 1.06% while MRCP yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MRCP better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.