IVV vs NULV
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Nuveen ESG Large-Cap Value ETF
Which is better, IVV or NULV?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, NULV over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. NULV is less concentrated, with 30.4% 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 | NULV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.26% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $2.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 1.37% |
| Holdings | 508 | 102 |
| YTD Return | +13.32% | +17.75%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.08% | +24.93%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.72%Best | +18.55% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.20%Best | +9.61% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.6% | 15.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9%Best | -37.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,588Best | $15,822 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8% | 30.4%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Nuveen |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Dec 13, 2016 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 14, 2016 to Sep 23, 2026 (9.8 years).
IVV vs NULV 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 9.8 years both funds cover.
IVV vs NULV Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Nuveen ESG Large-Cap Value ETF (NULV) is an ETF from Nuveen. Over the past year IVV returned +17.08% while NULV returned +24.93%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.32% versus a gain of 17.75% for NULV.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.72% per year against +18.55% for NULV; over five years the annualized figures are +13.20% and +9.61% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +14.24% annualized vs +10.37%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.6% compared with 15.4% for NULV. 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 -37.0% for NULV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.91. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while NULV charges 0.26%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $26 annually, a gap of $23 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 1.37% for NULV.
Holdings Overlap
23.1% of IVV's money is in holdings NULV also owns. 93.8% of NULV's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of NULV is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
113 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 127 in NULV, against full books of 508 and 102.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 12 positions for NULV that do not appear in our book for IVV (5.3% of the fund), and 370 for IVV that do not appear in NULV (75.6%).
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 NULV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.69% | 10.67% | 4.98% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 4.14% | 2.24% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 0.66% | 2.51% | 1.85% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 0.52% | 2.23% | 1.71% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 0.68% | 1.93% | 1.25% |
| MSMorgan Stanley | 0.39% | 1.97% | 1.58% |
| CCitigroup Inc. | 0.34% | 1.94% | 1.60% |
| PGProcter & Gamble Company | 0.51% | 1.73% | 1.22% |
| GSGoldman Sachs Group Inc/The | 0.46% | 1.63% | 1.17% |
| PFEPfizer Inc | 0.24% | 1.68% | 1.44% |
93.8% of NULV 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 NULV?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while NULV charges 0.26%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $23 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or NULV?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.08% vs +24.93% for NULV, so NULV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), IVV annualized +14.24% vs +10.37% for NULV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or NULV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.6% annualized versus 15.4% for NULV. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs NULV -37.0%.
Should I hold both IVV and NULV?
IVV and NULV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and NULV?
93.8% of NULV's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 93.8% of NULV's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 113 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 127 in NULV.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or NULV?
IVV yields 1.06% while NULV yields 1.37%, so NULV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is NULV better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, NULV over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. NULV is less concentrated, with 30.4% 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.