IVV vs MUC
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund, Inc
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | MUC | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 2.82% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $1.4B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 5.40% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 213 | |
| YTD Return | +13.43% | +4.40% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.61% | +11.21% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.47% | +6.38% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.26% | -3.10% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 12.8% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | BlackRock, Inc. (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Tax Preferred | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Feb 27, 1998 |
IVV vs MUC Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund, Inc (MUC) is a ETF from BlackRock, Inc. (US). Over the past year IVV returned +22.61% while MUC returned +11.21%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.43% versus a gain of 4.40% for MUC.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.47% per year against +6.38% for MUC; over five years the annualized figures are +13.26% and -3.10% respectively. Across the full 26-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.03% annualized vs -0.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 12.8% for MUC. 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 -56.6% for MUC. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.24. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while MUC charges 2.82%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $282 annually, a gap of $279 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 5.40% for MUC.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and MUC share 0 holdings out of 589 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or MUC?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while MUC charges 2.82%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $279 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or MUC?
Over the past year IVV returned +22.61% vs +11.21% for MUC, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (26 years), IVV annualized +7.03% vs -0.18% for MUC. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or MUC?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 12.8% for MUC. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs MUC -56.6%.
Should I hold both IVV and MUC?
IVV and MUC have a monthly-return correlation of 0.24, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and MUC?
IVV and MUC share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 589 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or MUC?
IVV yields 1.09% while MUC yields 5.40%, so MUC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.