IVV vs QCJA

IVV vs QCJA

Which is better, IVV or QCJA?

Large Cap Blend against Multi Alternative.

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

MetricIVVQCJA
Expense Ratio0.03%Best0.90%
AUM$876.4B$83M
Dividend Yield1.06%0.00%
Holdings50810
YTD Return+12.39%Best+7.95%
1Y Return+16.61%Best+11.45%
3Y Return (annualized)+21.38%-
5Y Return (annualized)+13.51%-
Volatility (annualized)12.9%6.9%Best
Max Drawdown-18.8%-10.7%Best
$10,000 over 1.7 years$12,983Best$12,011
Fund FamilyiShares by BlackRock (US)First Trust Portfolios (US)
CategoryEquityAlternative
StyleLarge Cap BlendMulti Alternative
InceptionMay 15, 2000Jan 17, 2025

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 21, 2025 to Sep 18, 2026 (1.7 years).

IVV vs QCJA 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 QCJA Performance

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% while QCJA returned +11.45%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.39% versus a gain of 7.95% for QCJA.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.9% compared with 6.9% for QCJA. 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 -10.7% for QCJA. 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 QCJA charges 0.90%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $90 annually, a gap of $87 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.00% for QCJA.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

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

IVVQCJA

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IVV or QCJA?

IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while QCJA charges 0.90%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $87 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, IVV or QCJA?

Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% vs +11.45% for QCJA, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), IVV annualized +16.60% vs +11.38% for QCJA. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, IVV or QCJA?

IVV has been the more volatile fund at 12.9% annualized versus 6.9% for QCJA. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs QCJA -10.7%.

Should I hold both IVV and QCJA?

IVV and QCJA 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 QCJA?

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

Is QCJA 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.