IVV vs PIT

IVV vs PIT

Which is better, IVV or PIT?

Large Cap Blend against Multi Alternative.

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y and the full window, PIT over 1Y.

Lower Fees: IVVHigher Returns: split

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

MetricIVVPIT
Expense Ratio0.03%Best0.55%
AUM$876.4B$300M
Dividend Yield1.06%5.94%
Holdings5086
YTD Return+12.27%+57.73%Best
1Y Return+17.04%+54.44%Best
3Y Return (annualized)+21.24%Best+19.23%
5Y Return (annualized)+13.08%-
Volatility (annualized)12.5%Best18.0%
Max Drawdown-18.8%-17.2%Best
$10,000 over 3.7 years$20,851Best$18,316
Fund FamilyiShares by BlackRock (US)VanEck
CategoryEquityAlternative
StyleLarge Cap BlendMulti Alternative
InceptionMay 15, 2000Dec 20, 2022

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 22, 2022 to Sep 17, 2026 (3.7 years).

IVV vs PIT 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 3.7 years both funds cover.

IVV vs PIT Performance

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and VanEck Commodity Strategy ETF (PIT) is an ETF from VanEck. Over the past year IVV returned +17.04% while PIT returned +54.44%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.27% versus a gain of 57.73% for PIT.

Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.24% per year against +19.23% for PIT. Across the full 4-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +21.97% annualized vs +17.77%.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

PIT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.0% compared with 12.5% 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 -18.8% for IVV and -17.2% for PIT. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at -0.06. They move largely independently of each other.

Fees and Cost Over Time

IVV charges 0.03% per year while PIT charges 0.55%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $55 annually, a gap of $52 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 5.94% for PIT.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of IVV and PIT you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

IVVPIT

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IVV or PIT?

IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while PIT charges 0.55%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $52 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, IVV or PIT?

Over the past year IVV returned +17.04% vs +54.44% for PIT, so PIT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IVV annualized +21.97% vs +17.77% for PIT. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, IVV or PIT?

PIT has been the more volatile fund at 18.0% annualized versus 12.5% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs PIT -17.2%.

Should I hold both IVV and PIT?

IVV and PIT have a monthly-return correlation of -0.06, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or PIT?

IVV yields 1.06% while PIT yields 5.94%, so PIT currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is PIT better than IVV?

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y and the full window, PIT over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.