IVV vs PQJA

IVV vs PQJA

Which is better, IVV or PQJA?

Large Cap Blend against Option Writing.

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97.

Lower Fees: IVVHigher Returns: IVV

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

MetricIVVPQJA
Expense Ratio0.03%Best0.50%
AUM$876.4B$32M
Dividend Yield1.06%0.00%
Holdings5088
YTD Return+11.57%Best+10.16%
1Y Return+17.57%Best+16.20%
3Y Return (annualized)+20.71%-
5Y Return (annualized)+12.80%-
Volatility (annualized)13.0%10.0%Best
Max Drawdown-18.8%-14.7%Best
$10,000 over 1.7 years$13,229Best$12,904
Fund FamilyiShares by BlackRock (US)PGIM Investments
CategoryEquityAlternative
StyleLarge Cap BlendOption Writing
InceptionMay 15, 2000Dec 27, 2024

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 2, 2025 to Sep 10, 2026 (1.7 years).

IVV vs PQJA 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 1.7 years both funds cover.

IVV vs PQJA Performance

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - January (PQJA) is an ETF from PGIM Investments. Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while PQJA returned +16.20%. Year to date, IVV is up 11.57% versus a gain of 10.16% for PQJA.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13.0% compared with 10.0% for PQJA. 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 -14.7% for PQJA. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.

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 PQJA charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $50 annually, a gap of $47 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.00% for PQJA.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

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

IVVPQJA

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IVV or PQJA?

IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while PQJA charges 0.50%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $47 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, IVV or PQJA?

Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs +16.20% for PQJA, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), IVV annualized +17.89% vs +16.18% for PQJA. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, IVV or PQJA?

IVV has been the more volatile fund at 13.0% annualized versus 10.0% for PQJA. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs PQJA -14.7%.

Should I hold both IVV and PQJA?

IVV and PQJA have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, 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.

Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or PQJA?

IVV yields 1.06% while PQJA yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is PQJA better than IVV?

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.