IVV vs OAKI
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Oakmark International Large Cap ETF
Which is better, IVV or OAKI?
IVV has been ahead.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y. OAKI is less concentrated, with 33.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.8%.
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 | OAKI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.65% |
| AUM | $850.0B | $95M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 1,018 | 108 |
| YTD Return | +12.12%Best | +6.60% |
| 1Y Return | +12.53%Best | +7.56% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.54% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.93% | - |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.8% | 33.0%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Oakmark Funds |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Dec 11, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
IVV vs OAKI 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
IVV vs OAKI Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Oakmark International Large Cap ETF (OAKI) is an ETF from Oakmark Funds. Over the past year IVV returned +12.53% while OAKI returned +7.56%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.12% versus a gain of 6.60% for OAKI.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while OAKI charges 0.65%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $65 annually, a gap of $62 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 0.04% for OAKI.
Holdings Overlap
1.2% of IVV's money is in holdings OAKI also owns. 2.5% of OAKI's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
OAKI and IVV share little of their money.
6 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 51 in OAKI, against full books of 1,018 and 108.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 6 positions for OAKI that do not appear in our book for IVV (10.9% of the fund), and 493 for IVV that do not appear in OAKI (98.4%).
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
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IVV and OAKI 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 OAKI?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while OAKI charges 0.65%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $62 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or OAKI?
Over the past year IVV returned +12.53% vs +7.56% for OAKI, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and OAKI?
2.5% of OAKI's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 2.5% of OAKI's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 6 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 51 in OAKI.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or OAKI?
IVV yields 1.09% while OAKI yields 0.04%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is OAKI better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y. OAKI is less concentrated, with 33.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.