IVV vs PWB
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Invesco Large Cap Growth ETF
Which is better, IVV or PWB?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. PWB led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. PWB is less concentrated, with 35.1% 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 | PWB |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.55% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $2.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 508 | 53 |
| YTD Return | +11.57% | +20.01%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.57% | +26.24%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.71% | +28.92%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.80% | +14.77%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.9%Best | 16.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -52.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,262 | $19,913Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9% | 35.1%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Mar 3, 2005 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 3, 2005 to Sep 10, 2026 (21.5 years).
IVV vs PWB 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 21.5 years both funds cover.
IVV vs PWB Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco Large Cap Growth ETF (PWB) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while PWB returned +26.24%. Year to date, IVV is up 11.57% versus a gain of 20.01% for PWB.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.71% per year against +28.92% for PWB; over five years the annualized figures are +12.80% and +14.77% respectively. Across the full 22-year window we track, PWB has the edge at +12.02% annualized vs +9.29%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PWB has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.6% compared with 14.9% 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 -52.6% for PWB. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.92. 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 PWB 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 0.00% for PWB.
Holdings Overlap
39.2% of IVV's money is in holdings PWB also owns. 94.3% of PWB's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of PWB is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
47 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 51 in PWB, against full books of 508 and 53.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 2 positions for PWB that do not appear in our book for IVV (1.3% of the fund), and 448 for IVV that do not appear in PWB (60.1%).
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 PWB | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.98% | 3.22% | 4.76% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.86% | 3.28% | 3.58% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.01% | 3.42% | 0.59% |
| GOOGLAlphabet A Usd 0.001 | 3.19% | 3.17% | 0.02% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.98% | 3.24% | 0.26% |
| METAMeta Platforms, Inc. | 1.94% | 3.14% | 1.20% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.51% | 3.26% | 1.75% |
| VVisa Inc | 0.92% | 3.70% | 2.78% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 0.64% | 3.93% | 3.29% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 0.69% | 3.79% | 3.10% |
94.3% of PWB 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 PWB?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while PWB charges 0.55%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $52 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or PWB?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs +26.24% for PWB, so PWB leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (22 years), IVV annualized +9.29% vs +12.02% for PWB. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or PWB?
PWB has been the more volatile fund at 16.6% annualized versus 14.9% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs PWB -52.6%.
Should I hold both IVV and PWB?
IVV and PWB have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, 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 PWB?
94.3% of PWB's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 94.3% of PWB's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 47 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 51 in PWB.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or PWB?
IVV yields 1.06% while PWB yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PWB better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. PWB led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. PWB is less concentrated, with 35.1% 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.