IVV vs QCML
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF
Which is better, IVV or QCML?
Large Cap Blend against Leverage Strategy.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window.
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
| Metric | IVV | QCML |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 1.50% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $56M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 508 | 2 |
| YTD Return | +13.32%Best | -2.99% |
| 1Y Return | +17.08%Best | -3.76% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.72% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.20% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.0%Best | 121.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -18.8%Best | -68.8% |
| $10,000 over 1.6 years | $12,840Best | $8,269 |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | GraniteShares |
| Category | Equity | Alternative |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Leverage Strategy |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Feb 13, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.6 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 13, 2025 to Sep 23, 2026 (1.6 years).
IVV vs QCML 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 1.6 years both funds cover.
IVV vs QCML Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML) is an ETF from GraniteShares. Over the past year IVV returned +17.08% while QCML returned -3.76%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.32% versus a loss of 2.99% for QCML.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QCML has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 121.1% compared with 13.0% 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 -18.8% for IVV and -68.8% for QCML. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.66. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while QCML charges 1.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $150 annually, a gap of $147 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.00% for QCML.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IVV and QCML you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or QCML?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while QCML charges 1.50%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $147 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or QCML?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.08% vs -3.76% for QCML, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), IVV annualized +16.91% vs -11.20% for QCML. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or QCML?
QCML has been the more volatile fund at 121.1% annualized versus 13.0% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs QCML -68.8%.
Should I hold both IVV and QCML?
IVV and QCML have a monthly-return correlation of 0.66, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or QCML?
IVV yields 1.06% while QCML yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QCML better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.