IVV vs ONEV
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs State Street SPDR Russell 1000 Low Volatility Focus ETF
Which is better, IVV or ONEV?
Large Cap Blend against Mid Cap Value.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ONEV is less concentrated, with 9.3% 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 | ONEV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.20% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $302M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 1.79% |
| Holdings | 508 | 452 |
| YTD Return | +12.51%Best | +9.91% |
| 1Y Return | +17.57%Best | +10.02% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.27%Best | +12.56% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.95%Best | +8.17% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1%Best | 15.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9%Best | -40.2% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,384Best | $14,809 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9% | 9.3%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | State Street Investment Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Mid Cap Value |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Dec 1, 2015 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 3, 2015 to Sep 11, 2026 (10.8 years).
IVV vs ONEV 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 10.8 years both funds cover.
IVV vs ONEV Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and State Street SPDR Russell 1000 Low Volatility Focus ETF (ONEV) is an ETF from State Street Investment Management. Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while ONEV returned +10.02%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.51% versus a gain of 9.91% for ONEV.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.27% per year against +12.56% for ONEV; over five years the annualized figures are +12.95% and +8.17% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +13.76% annualized vs +9.54%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ONEV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.5% compared with 15.1% 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 -33.9% for IVV and -40.2% for ONEV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while ONEV charges 0.20%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $20 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 1.79% for ONEV.
Holdings Overlap
9.0% of IVV's money is in holdings ONEV also owns. 65.8% of ONEV's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
203 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 449 in ONEV, against full books of 508 and 452.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 231 positions for ONEV that do not appear in our book for IVV (31.5% of the fund), and 293 for IVV that do not appear in ONEV (90.4%).
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 ONEV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALLAllstate Corp. | 0.10% | 1.54% | 1.44% |
| PGRProgressive Corp. | 0.19% | 1.13% | 0.94% |
| MCKMckesson Corp. | 0.16% | 0.99% | 0.83% |
| TRVTravelers Cos., Inc. | 0.12% | 0.86% | 0.74% |
| ACGLArch Capital Group Ltd 5.450% | 0.05% | 0.91% | 0.86% |
| CICigna Corp. | 0.11% | 0.83% | 0.72% |
| CMCSAComcast Corp. Class A | 0.13% | 0.72% | 0.59% |
| MMCMarsh & Mclennan Cos., Inc. | 0.14% | 0.70% | 0.56% |
| HIGHartford Financial Services Group Inc. | 0.06% | 0.77% | 0.71% |
| CINFCincinnati Financial Corp. | 0.04% | 0.76% | 0.72% |
65.8% of ONEV 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 ONEV?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while ONEV charges 0.20%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $17 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or ONEV?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs +10.02% for ONEV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), IVV annualized +13.76% vs +9.54% for ONEV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or ONEV?
ONEV has been the more volatile fund at 15.5% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs ONEV -40.2%.
Should I hold both IVV and ONEV?
IVV and ONEV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and ONEV?
65.8% of ONEV's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 65.8% of ONEV's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 203 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 449 in ONEV.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or ONEV?
IVV yields 1.06% while ONEV yields 1.79%, so ONEV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ONEV better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ONEV is less concentrated, with 9.3% 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.