IVV vs NZAC
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs State Street SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. NZAC offers more diversification with 715 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | NZAC | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.12% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | $199M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 2.07% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 715 | |
| YTD Return | +14.29% | +10.91% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.79% | +18.77% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.19% | +19.32% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.28% | +9.79% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 14.8% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -33.7% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Nov 25, 2014 |
IVV vs NZAC Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and State Street SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) is a ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors. Over the past year IVV returned +21.79% while NZAC returned +18.77%. Year to date, IVV is up 14.29% versus a gain of 10.91% for NZAC.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.19% per year against +19.32% for NZAC; over five years the annualized figures are +13.28% and +9.79% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, NZAC has the edge at +9.10% annualized vs +7.06%. 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 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 -56.5% for IVV and -33.7% for NZAC. 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 0.97. 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 1.10% against 2.07% for NZAC.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and NZAC share 220 holdings out of 910 unique holdings combined, representing a 52.4% weight overlap.
High overlap means holding both may not provide much additional diversification.
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. On a $10,000 investment, that is $9 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or NZAC?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.79% vs +18.77% for NZAC, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), IVV annualized +7.06% vs +9.10% for NZAC. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or NZAC?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 14.8% for NZAC. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% 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. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and NZAC?
IVV and NZAC share 220 common holdings with a 52.4% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 910 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or NZAC?
IVV yields 1.10% while NZAC yields 2.07%, so NZAC 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.