IVV vs MTUM
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
Which is better, IVV or MTUM?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 5Y, MTUM over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. MTUM is less concentrated, with 34.9% 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 | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.15% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $23.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.62% |
| Holdings | 508 | 130 |
| YTD Return | +13.32% | +25.52%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.08% | +23.87%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.72% | +32.12%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.20%Best | +12.88% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.4%Best | 16.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9%Best | -34.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,588Best | $18,327 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8% | 34.9%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Apr 16, 2013 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 18, 2013 to Sep 23, 2026 (13.4 years).
IVV vs MTUM 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 13.4 years both funds cover.
IVV vs MTUM Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IVV returned +17.08% while MTUM returned +23.87%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.32% versus a gain of 25.52% for MTUM.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.72% per year against +32.12% for MTUM; over five years the annualized figures are +13.20% and +12.88% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, MTUM has the edge at +15.07% annualized vs +13.36%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MTUM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.7% compared with 14.4% 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 -34.1% for MTUM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.85. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while MTUM charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $15 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.62% for MTUM.
Holdings Overlap
27.4% of IVV's money is in holdings MTUM also owns. 94.8% of MTUM's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of MTUM is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
103 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 126 in MTUM, against full books of 508 and 130.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 17 positions for MTUM that do not appear in our book for IVV (4.0% of the fund), and 379 for IVV that do not appear in MTUM (71.2%).
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 MTUM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.63% | 5.15% | 3.52% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.16% | 5.08% | 3.92% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 2.77% | 0.23% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.39% | 2.18% | 0.21% |
| INTCIntel Corporation | 0.67% | 3.73% | 3.06% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.97% | 3.40% | 2.43% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 0.66% | 3.61% | 2.95% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 1.01% | 2.64% | 1.63% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 0.55% | 2.92% | 2.37% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 0.47% | 2.73% | 2.26% |
94.8% of MTUM 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 MTUM?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while MTUM charges 0.15%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $12 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or MTUM?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.08% vs +23.87% for MTUM, so MTUM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), IVV annualized +13.36% vs +15.07% for MTUM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or MTUM?
MTUM has been the more volatile fund at 16.7% annualized versus 14.4% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs MTUM -34.1%.
Should I hold both IVV and MTUM?
IVV and MTUM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.85, 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 MTUM?
94.8% of MTUM's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 94.8% of MTUM's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 103 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 126 in MTUM.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or MTUM?
IVV yields 1.06% while MTUM yields 0.62%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MTUM better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 5Y, MTUM over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. MTUM is less concentrated, with 34.9% 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.