IVV vs NVDB
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs ProShares Ultra NVDA ETF
Which is better, IVV or NVDB?
Large Cap Blend against Trading-Leveraged Equity.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. NVDB led over 1Y and the full window.
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 | NVDB |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.95% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $8M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 1.38% |
| Holdings | 508 | 3 |
| YTD Return | +12.39% | +14.42%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.61% | +21.42%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.38% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.51% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.3%Best | 54.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -8.9%Best | -42.9% |
| $10,000 over 1 years | $11,801 | $11,883Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | ProShares |
| Category | Equity | Alternative |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Trading-Leveraged Equity |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Sep 8, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 10, 2025 to Sep 18, 2026 (1 years).
IVV vs NVDB 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 1 years both funds cover.
IVV vs NVDB Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and ProShares Ultra NVDA ETF (NVDB) is an ETF from ProShares. Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% while NVDB returned +21.42%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.39% versus a gain of 14.42% for NVDB.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
NVDB has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 54.5% compared with 13.3% 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 -8.9% for IVV and -42.9% for NVDB. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.71. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while NVDB charges 0.95%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $95 annually, a gap of $92 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 1.38% for NVDB.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IVV and NVDB you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or NVDB?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while NVDB charges 0.95%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $92 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or NVDB?
Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% vs +21.42% for NVDB, so NVDB leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), IVV annualized +18.01% vs +18.83% for NVDB. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or NVDB?
NVDB has been the more volatile fund at 54.5% annualized versus 13.3% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -8.9% vs NVDB -42.9%.
Should I hold both IVV and NVDB?
IVV and NVDB have a monthly-return correlation of 0.71, 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 NVDB?
IVV yields 1.06% while NVDB yields 1.38%, so NVDB currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is NVDB better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. NVDB 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.