IVV vs NCZ
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Virtus Convertible & Income Fund II
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. NCZ delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | NCZ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 1.44% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $321M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 8.16% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 220 | |
| YTD Return | +13.72% | +22.27% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.64% | +33.30% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.55% | +22.85% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.27% | +6.00% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 25.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -85.6% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Virtus Investment Partners | |
| Category | Equity | Convertible | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jul 31, 2003 |
IVV vs NCZ Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Virtus Convertible & Income Fund II (NCZ) is a ETF from Virtus Investment Partners. Over the past year IVV returned +21.64% while NCZ returned +33.30%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.72% versus a gain of 22.27% for NCZ.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.55% per year against +22.85% for NCZ; over five years the annualized figures are +13.27% and +6.00% respectively. Across the full 23-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.04% annualized vs -2.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
NCZ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 25.6% compared with 15.1% 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 -56.5% for IVV and -85.6% for NCZ. 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 0.73. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while NCZ charges 1.44%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $144 annually, a gap of $141 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 8.16% for NCZ.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and NCZ share 27 holdings out of 575 unique holdings combined, representing a 3.4% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or NCZ?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while NCZ charges 1.44%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $141 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or NCZ?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.64% vs +33.30% for NCZ, so NCZ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (23 years), IVV annualized +7.04% vs -2.96% for NCZ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or NCZ?
NCZ has been the more volatile fund at 25.6% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs NCZ -85.6%.
Should I hold both IVV and NCZ?
IVV and NCZ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.73, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and NCZ?
IVV and NCZ share 27 common holdings with a 3.4% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 575 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or NCZ?
IVV yields 1.09% while NCZ yields 8.16%, so NCZ 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.