IVV vs PZT
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Invesco New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. PZT offers more diversification with 1,230 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | PZT | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.28% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | $141M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 3.73% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 1,230 | |
| YTD Return | +12.71% | +1.11% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.89% | +7.53% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.08% | +3.35% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.96% | -0.44% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 7.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -25.4% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Tax Preferred | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Oct 11, 2007 |
IVV vs PZT Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF (PZT) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IVV returned +21.89% while PZT returned +7.53%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.71% versus a gain of 1.11% for PZT.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.08% per year against +3.35% for PZT; over five years the annualized figures are +12.96% and -0.44% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.00% annualized vs +0.22%. 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 7.3% for PZT. 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 -25.4% for PZT. 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 0.30. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while PZT 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 PZT.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and PZT share 0 holdings out of 759 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 PZT?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while PZT 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 PZT?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.89% vs +7.53% for PZT, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), IVV annualized +7.00% vs +0.22% for PZT. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or PZT?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 7.3% for PZT. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs PZT -25.4%.
Should I hold both IVV and PZT?
IVV and PZT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.30, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and PZT?
IVV and PZT share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 759 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or PZT?
IVV yields 1.10% while PZT yields 3.73%, so PZT 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.