IVV vs NEA
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. NEA offers more diversification with 1,108 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | NEA | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 3.53% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | - | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 7.34% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 1,108 | |
| YTD Return | +12.28% | +0.22% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.94% | +10.71% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.81% | +9.57% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.05% | -1.08% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 13.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -48.1% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Nuveen | |
| Category | Equity | Tax Preferred | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Nov 21, 2002 |
IVV vs NEA Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund (NEA) is a ETF from Nuveen. Over the past year IVV returned +20.94% while NEA returned +10.71%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.28% versus a gain of 0.22% for NEA.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.81% per year against +9.57% for NEA; over five years the annualized figures are +13.05% and -1.08% respectively. Across the full 24-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +6.98% annualized vs +0.10%. 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 13.1% for NEA. 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 -48.1% for NEA. 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 NEA charges 3.53%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $353 annually, a gap of $350 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 7.34% for NEA.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and NEA share 0 holdings out of 910 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 NEA?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while NEA charges 3.53%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $350 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or NEA?
Over the past year IVV returned +20.94% vs +10.71% for NEA, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (24 years), IVV annualized +6.98% vs +0.10% for NEA. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or NEA?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 13.1% for NEA. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs NEA -48.1%.
Should I hold both IVV and NEA?
IVV and NEA 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 NEA?
IVV and NEA share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 910 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or NEA?
IVV yields 1.10% while NEA yields 7.34%, so NEA 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.