IVV vs QCLN
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. QCLN delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | QCLN | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.59% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | $623M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 0.17% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 53 | |
| YTD Return | +12.71% | +8.58% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.89% | +39.38% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.08% | +4.22% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.96% | -4.58% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 33.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -76.2% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | First Trust Portfolios (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Feb 8, 2007 |
IVV vs QCLN Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) is a ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year IVV returned +21.89% while QCLN returned +39.38%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.71% versus a gain of 8.58% for QCLN.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.08% per year against +4.22% for QCLN; over five years the annualized figures are +12.96% and -4.58% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.00% annualized vs +4.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QCLN has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 33.4% compared with 15.1% 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 -76.2% for QCLN. 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 0.73. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while QCLN charges 0.59%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $59 annually, a gap of $56 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 0.17% for QCLN.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and QCLN share 5 holdings out of 552 unique holdings combined, representing a 1.9% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or QCLN?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while QCLN charges 0.59%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $56 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or QCLN?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.89% vs +39.38% for QCLN, so QCLN leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), IVV annualized +7.00% vs +4.99% for QCLN. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or QCLN?
QCLN has been the more volatile fund at 33.4% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs QCLN -76.2%.
Should I hold both IVV and QCLN?
IVV and QCLN have a monthly-return correlation of 0.73, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and QCLN?
IVV and QCLN share 5 common holdings with a 1.9% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 552 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or QCLN?
IVV yields 1.10% while QCLN yields 0.17%, so IVV 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.