IVV vs ONEQ
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
Which is better, IVV or ONEQ?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 5Y, ONEQ over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.4%.
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 | ONEQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.21% |
| AUM | $886.7B | $10.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 0.62% |
| Holdings | 508 | 1,034 |
| YTD Return | +12.70% | +14.27%Best |
| 1Y Return | +19.36% | +21.94%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.16% | +24.71%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.75%Best | +12.67% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.6%Best | 17.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -55.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,221Best | $18,157 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9%Best | 53.4% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Fidelity Investments (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Sep 25, 2003 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 1, 2003 to Sep 8, 2026 (22.9 years).
IVV vs ONEQ 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 22.9 years both funds cover.
IVV vs ONEQ Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US). Over the past year IVV returned +19.36% while ONEQ returned +21.94%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.70% versus a gain of 14.27% for ONEQ.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.16% per year against +24.71% for ONEQ; over five years the annualized figures are +12.75% and +12.67% respectively. Across the full 23-year window we track, ONEQ has the edge at +12.46% annualized vs +9.57%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ONEQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.9% compared with 14.6% 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 -56.5% for IVV and -55.5% for ONEQ. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.94. 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 ONEQ charges 0.21%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $21 annually, a gap of $18 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 0.62% for ONEQ.
Holdings Overlap
56.9% of IVV's money is in holdings ONEQ also owns. 83.7% of ONEQ's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of ONEQ is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
148 positions in common, counted across the 504 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 731 in ONEQ, against full books of 508 and 1,034.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 378 positions for ONEQ that do not appear in our book for IVV (13.2% of the fund), and 346 for IVV that do not appear in ONEQ (42.4%).
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
| Stock | Weight in IVV | Weight in ONEQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.98% | 10.62% | 2.64% |
| AAPLApple Inc Ord | 6.86% | 9.32% | 2.46% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.44% | 6.08% | 0.64% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.01% | 5.62% | 1.61% |
| GOOGL Alphabet Inc. Class A | 3.19% | 4.56% | 1.37% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.98% | 3.92% | 0.94% |
| GOOGAlphabet, Inc., Class C | 2.56% | 4.23% | 1.67% |
| TSLATesla Motors Inc | 1.36% | 3.46% | 2.10% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 1.94% | 2.71% | 0.77% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.51% | 2.86% | 1.35% |
83.7% of ONEQ is already inside IVV.
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 ONEQ?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while ONEQ charges 0.21%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $18 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or ONEQ?
Over the past year IVV returned +19.36% vs +21.94% for ONEQ, so ONEQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (23 years), IVV annualized +9.57% vs +12.46% for ONEQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or ONEQ?
ONEQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.9% annualized versus 14.6% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs ONEQ -55.5%.
Should I hold both IVV and ONEQ?
IVV and ONEQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, 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 ONEQ?
83.7% of ONEQ's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 83.7% of ONEQ's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 148 positions in common, counted across the 504 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 731 in ONEQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or ONEQ?
IVV yields 1.10% while ONEQ yields 0.62%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ONEQ better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 5Y, ONEQ over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.