IVV vs NUSB

IVV vs NUSB

Which is better, IVV or NUSB?

IVV has been ahead.

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window.

Lower Fees: IVVHigher Returns: IVV

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

MetricIVVNUSB
Expense Ratio0.03%Best0.17%
AUM$876.4B$156M
Dividend Yield1.06%4.24%
Holdings508143
YTD Return+12.01%Best+2.48%
1Y Return+16.48%Best+3.81%
3Y Return (annualized)+21.21%-
5Y Return (annualized)+12.95%-
Volatility (annualized)12.2%0.7%Best
Max Drawdown-18.8%-0.3%Best
$10,000 over 2.5 years$15,338Best$11,278
Fund FamilyiShares by BlackRock (US)Nuveen
CategoryEquityMoney Market
StyleLarge Cap Blend-
InceptionMay 15, 2000Mar 5, 2024

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.5 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 6, 2024 to Sep 14, 2026 (2.5 years).

IVV vs NUSB 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 2.5 years both funds cover.

IVV vs NUSB Performance

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Nuveen Ultra Short Income ETF (NUSB) is an ETF from Nuveen. Over the past year IVV returned +16.48% while NUSB returned +3.81%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.01% versus a gain of 2.48% for NUSB.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.2% compared with 0.7% for NUSB. 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 -18.8% for IVV and -0.3% for NUSB. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.34. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.

Fees and Cost Over Time

IVV charges 0.03% per year while NUSB charges 0.17%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $17 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 4.24% for NUSB.

Holdings Overlap

We hold position weights for 490 holdings in IVV and 62 in NUSB, totalling 99.3% and 41.3% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.

0 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 62 in NUSB, against full books of 508 and 143.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of IVV and NUSB you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

IVVNUSB

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IVV or NUSB?

IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while NUSB charges 0.17%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $14 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, IVV or NUSB?

Over the past year IVV returned +16.48% vs +3.81% for NUSB, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, IVV or NUSB?

IVV has been the more volatile fund at 12.2% annualized versus 0.7% for NUSB. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs NUSB -0.3%.

Should I hold both IVV and NUSB?

IVV and NUSB have a monthly-return correlation of 0.34, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or NUSB?

IVV yields 1.06% while NUSB yields 4.24%, so NUSB currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is NUSB better than IVV?

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.