IVV vs PZA
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Invesco National AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. PZA offers more diversification with 1175 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | PZA | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.28% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $4.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 3.64% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 6,263 | |
| YTD Return | +14.50% | +1.63% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.02% | +7.80% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.80% | +3.26% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.37% | -0.16% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 7.0% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -27.0% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Tax Preferred | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Oct 11, 2007 |
IVV vs PZA Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco National AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF (PZA) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IVV returned +22.02% while PZA returned +7.80%. Year to date, IVV is up 14.50% versus a gain of 1.63% for PZA.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.80% per year against +3.26% for PZA; over five years the annualized figures are +13.37% and -0.16% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.07% annualized vs +0.45%. 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 PZA. 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 -27.0% for PZA. 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 0.32. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while PZA 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 1.09% against 3.64% for PZA.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and PZA share 0 holdings out of 1680 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 PZA?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while PZA 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 PZA?
Over the past year IVV returned +22.02% vs +7.80% for PZA, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), IVV annualized +7.07% vs +0.45% for PZA. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or PZA?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 7.0% for PZA. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs PZA -27.0%.
Should I hold both IVV and PZA?
IVV and PZA have a monthly-return correlation of 0.32, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and PZA?
IVV and PZA share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 1680 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or PZA?
IVV yields 1.09% while PZA yields 3.64%, so PZA 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.