IVV vs NMT
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Nuveen Massachusetts Quality Municipal Income Fund
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 | NMT | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 3.90% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | - | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 6.89% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 114 | |
| YTD Return | +13.80% | +15.35% | |
| 1Y Return | +23.01% | +17.95% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.77% | +13.60% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.39% | +1.30% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 11.7% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -49.6% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Nuveen | |
| Category | Equity | Tax Preferred | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Mar 18, 1993 |
IVV vs NMT Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Nuveen Massachusetts Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMT) is a ETF from Nuveen. Over the past year IVV returned +23.01% while NMT returned +17.95%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.80% versus a gain of 15.35% for NMT.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.77% per year against +13.60% for NMT; over five years the annualized figures are +13.39% and +1.30% respectively. Across the full 26-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.04% annualized vs +0.57%. 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 11.7% for NMT. 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 -49.6% for NMT. 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 0.17. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while NMT charges 3.90%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $390 annually, a gap of $387 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 6.89% for NMT.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and NMT share 0 holdings out of 533 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 NMT?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while NMT charges 3.90%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $387 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or NMT?
Over the past year IVV returned +23.01% vs +17.95% for NMT, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (26 years), IVV annualized +7.04% vs +0.57% for NMT. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or NMT?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 11.7% for NMT. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs NMT -49.6%.
Should I hold both IVV and NMT?
IVV and NMT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.17, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and NMT?
IVV and NMT share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 533 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or NMT?
IVV yields 1.09% while NMT yields 6.89%, so NMT 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.