IVV vs PWZ
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. PWZ offers more diversification with 1,175 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | PWZ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.28% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | $1.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 3.73% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 1,175 | |
| YTD Return | +12.71% | +1.00% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.89% | +7.67% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.08% | +3.14% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.96% | -0.18% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 7.0% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -24.7% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Tax Preferred | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Oct 11, 2007 |
IVV vs PWZ Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF (PWZ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IVV returned +21.89% while PWZ returned +7.67%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.71% versus a gain of 1.00% for PWZ.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.08% per year against +3.14% for PWZ; over five years the annualized figures are +12.96% and -0.18% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.00% annualized vs +0.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 7.0% for PWZ. 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 -24.7% for PWZ. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.31. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while PWZ charges 0.28%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $28 annually, a gap of $25 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 3.73% for PWZ.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and PWZ share 0 holdings out of 1012 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or PWZ?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while PWZ charges 0.28%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $25 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or PWZ?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.89% vs +7.67% for PWZ, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), IVV annualized +7.00% vs +0.62% for PWZ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or PWZ?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 7.0% for PWZ. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs PWZ -24.7%.
Should I hold both IVV and PWZ?
IVV and PWZ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.31, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and PWZ?
IVV and PWZ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 1012 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or PWZ?
IVV yields 1.10% while PWZ yields 3.73%, so PWZ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.