IVV vs QLC
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Northern Trust US Quality Large Cap ETF
Which is better, IVV or QLC?
QLC has been ahead.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. QLC led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. QLC is less concentrated, with 37.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%.
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 | QLC |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.25% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $1.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.91% |
| Holdings | 508 | 181 |
| YTD Return | +11.57% | +12.51%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.57% | +20.74%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.71% | +23.50%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.80% | +14.35%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.2%Best | 16.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9%Best | -35.9% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,262 | $19,552Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9% | 37.3%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Northern Trust Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Sep 23, 2015 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 24, 2015 to Sep 10, 2026 (11 years).
IVV vs QLC 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 11 years both funds cover.
IVV vs QLC Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Northern Trust US Quality Large Cap ETF (QLC) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management. Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while QLC returned +20.74%. Year to date, IVV is up 11.57% versus a gain of 12.51% for QLC.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.71% per year against +23.50% for QLC; over five years the annualized figures are +12.80% and +14.35% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, QLC has the edge at +14.19% annualized vs +14.02%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QLC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.4% compared with 15.2% 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 -33.9% for IVV and -35.9% for QLC. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.93. 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 QLC charges 0.25%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $25 annually, a gap of $22 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.91% for QLC.
Holdings Overlap
67.0% of IVV's money is in holdings QLC also owns. 95.2% of QLC's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of QLC is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
159 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 177 in QLC, against full books of 508 and 181.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 14 positions for QLC that do not appear in our book for IVV (2.9% of the fund), and 338 for IVV that do not appear in QLC (32.3%).
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 QLC | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.98% | 7.64% | 0.34% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.86% | 6.92% | 0.06% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.44% | 4.34% | 1.10% |
| GOOGLAlphabet A Usd 0.001 | 3.19% | 3.81% | 0.62% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.01% | 2.46% | 1.55% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.98% | 3.03% | 0.05% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.56% | 3.39% | 0.83% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase & Co. | 1.45% | 1.98% | 0.53% |
| METAMeta Platforms, Inc. | 1.94% | 1.41% | 0.53% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 0.93% | 1.78% | 0.85% |
95.2% of QLC 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 QLC?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while QLC charges 0.25%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $22 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or QLC?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs +20.74% for QLC, so QLC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), IVV annualized +14.02% vs +14.19% for QLC. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or QLC?
QLC has been the more volatile fund at 16.4% annualized versus 15.2% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs QLC -35.9%.
Should I hold both IVV and QLC?
IVV and QLC have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, 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 QLC?
95.2% of QLC's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 95.2% of QLC's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 159 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 177 in QLC.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or QLC?
IVV yields 1.06% while QLC yields 0.91%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QLC better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. QLC led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. QLC is less concentrated, with 37.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.