IVV vs QDEF
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Northern Trust Quality Dividend Defensive ETF
Which is better, IVV or QDEF?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.4%.
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 | QDEF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.39% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $555M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 1.54% |
| Holdings | 508 | 137 |
| YTD Return | +12.51%Best | +12.23% |
| 1Y Return | +17.57%Best | +15.57% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.27%Best | +19.54% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.95%Best | +12.63% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.3% | 13.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9%Best | -36.2% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,384Best | $18,125 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9%Best | 38.4% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Northern Trust Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Dec 14, 2012 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 19, 2012 to Sep 11, 2026 (13.7 years).
IVV vs QDEF 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 13.7 years both funds cover.
IVV vs QDEF Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Northern Trust Quality Dividend Defensive ETF (QDEF) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management. Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while QDEF returned +15.57%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.51% versus a gain of 12.23% for QDEF.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.27% per year against +19.54% for QDEF; over five years the annualized figures are +12.95% and +12.63% respectively. Across the full 14-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +13.60% annualized vs +10.56%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.3% compared with 13.4% for QDEF. 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 -33.9% for IVV and -36.2% for QDEF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.95. 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 QDEF charges 0.39%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $39 annually, a gap of $36 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 1.54% for QDEF.
Holdings Overlap
49.2% of IVV's money is in holdings QDEF also owns. 83.5% of QDEF's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of QDEF is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
95 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 133 in QDEF, against full books of 508 and 137.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 35 positions for QDEF that do not appear in our book for IVV (14.0% of the fund), and 399 for IVV that do not appear in QDEF (50.2%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in IVV | Weight in QDEF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.98% | 6.91% | 1.07% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.86% | 7.88% | 1.02% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.44% | 4.15% | 1.29% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.98% | 4.82% | 1.84% |
| GOOGLAlphabet A Usd 0.001 | 3.19% | 2.30% | 0.89% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.56% | 1.84% | 0.72% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 0.93% | 2.72% | 1.79% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase & Co. | 1.45% | 2.13% | 0.68% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 0.65% | 2.91% | 2.26% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 0.72% | 2.35% | 1.63% |
83.5% of QDEF is already inside IVV.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or QDEF?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while QDEF charges 0.39%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $36 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or QDEF?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs +15.57% for QDEF, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (14 years), IVV annualized +13.60% vs +10.56% for QDEF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or QDEF?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 14.3% annualized versus 13.4% for QDEF. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs QDEF -36.2%.
Should I hold both IVV and QDEF?
IVV and QDEF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, 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.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and QDEF?
83.5% of QDEF's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 83.5% of QDEF's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 95 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 133 in QDEF.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or QDEF?
IVV yields 1.06% while QDEF yields 1.54%, so QDEF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QDEF better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.