IVV vs QDF
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. QDF delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | QDF | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.39% | |
| AUM | $886.7B | $2.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 1.48% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 119 | |
| YTD Return | +12.92% | +13.41% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.22% | +21.58% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.95% | +17.79% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.76% | +11.60% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 14.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -37.2% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Northern Trust Asset Management | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Dec 14, 2012 |
IVV vs QDF Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF (QDF) is a ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management. Over the past year IVV returned +21.22% while QDF returned +21.58%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.92% versus a gain of 13.41% for QDF.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.95% per year against +17.79% for QDF; over five years the annualized figures are +12.76% and +11.60% respectively. Across the full 14-year window we track, QDF has the edge at +10.66% annualized vs +7.00%. 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 14.4% for QDF. 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 -37.2% for QDF. 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 0.97. 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 QDF 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 1.10% against 1.48% for QDF.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and QDF share 81 holdings out of 538 unique holdings combined, representing a 38.4% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or QDF?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while QDF charges 0.39%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $36 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or QDF?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.22% vs +21.58% for QDF, so QDF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (14 years), IVV annualized +7.00% vs +10.66% for QDF. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or QDF?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 14.4% for QDF. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs QDF -37.2%.
Should I hold both IVV and QDF?
IVV and QDF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and QDF?
IVV and QDF share 81 common holdings with a 38.4% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 538 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or QDF?
IVV yields 1.10% while QDF yields 1.48%, so QDF 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.