IVV vs NZAC
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs State Street SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF
Which is better, IVV or NZAC?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. NZAC is less concentrated, with 27.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%.
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 | NZAC |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.12% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $196M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 2.01% |
| Holdings | 508 | 673 |
| YTD Return | +11.57%Best | +8.26% |
| 1Y Return | +17.57%Best | +13.97% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.71%Best | +18.08% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.80%Best | +9.19% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.0% | 14.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9% | -33.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,262Best | $15,521 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9% | 27.5%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | SPDR State Street Global Advisors |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Nov 25, 2014 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 26, 2014 to Sep 10, 2026 (11.8 years).
IVV vs NZAC 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 11.8 years both funds cover.
IVV vs NZAC Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and State Street SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) is an ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors. Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while NZAC returned +13.97%. Year to date, IVV is up 11.57% versus a gain of 8.26% for NZAC.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.71% per year against +18.08% for NZAC; over five years the annualized figures are +12.80% and +9.19% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +12.32% annualized vs +8.82%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.0% compared with 14.8% for NZAC. 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 -33.7% for NZAC. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.97. 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 NZAC charges 0.12%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $12 annually, a gap of $9 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 2.01% for NZAC.
Holdings Overlap
74.2% of IVV's money is in holdings NZAC also owns. 63.0% of NZAC's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of IVV is already inside NZAC. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
221 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 626 in NZAC, against full books of 508 and 673.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 28 positions for NZAC that do not appear in our book for IVV (2.2% of the fund), and 275 for IVV that do not appear in NZAC (25.2%).
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 NZAC | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.98% | 6.22% | 1.76% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.86% | 4.72% | 2.14% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.44% | 3.76% | 1.68% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.01% | 2.56% | 1.45% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.98% | 1.98% | 1.00% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.56% | 2.25% | 0.31% |
| GOOGLAlphabet A Usd 0.001 | 3.19% | 1.48% | 1.71% |
| METAMeta Platforms, Inc. | 1.94% | 1.33% | 0.61% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase & Co. | 1.45% | 1.27% | 0.18% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.36% | 1.35% | 0.01% |
74.2% of IVV is already inside NZAC.
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 NZAC?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while NZAC charges 0.12%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $9 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or NZAC?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs +13.97% for NZAC, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), IVV annualized +12.32% vs +8.82% for NZAC. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or NZAC?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.0% annualized versus 14.8% for NZAC. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs NZAC -33.7%.
Should I hold both IVV and NZAC?
IVV and NZAC have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, 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 NZAC?
74.2% of IVV's money is in holdings NZAC also owns. 63.0% of NZAC's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 221 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 626 in NZAC.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or NZAC?
IVV yields 1.06% while NZAC yields 2.01%, so NZAC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is NZAC better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. NZAC is less concentrated, with 27.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.