IVV vs QLV
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Northern Trust US Quality Low Volatility ETF
Which is better, IVV or QLV?
IVV has been ahead.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. QLV is less concentrated, with 35.8% 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 | QLV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.08% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $167M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 1.49% |
| Holdings | 508 | 122 |
| YTD Return | +11.57%Best | +10.75% |
| 1Y Return | +17.57%Best | +13.49% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.71%Best | +15.62% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.80%Best | +9.90% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.5% | 13.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9%Best | -34.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,262Best | $16,032 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9% | 35.8%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 | Jul 15, 2019 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 16, 2019 to Sep 10, 2026 (7.2 years).
IVV vs QLV 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 7.2 years both funds cover.
IVV vs QLV Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Northern Trust US Quality Low Volatility ETF (QLV) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management. Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while QLV returned +13.49%. Year to date, IVV is up 11.57% versus a gain of 10.75% for QLV.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.71% per year against +15.62% for QLV; over five years the annualized figures are +12.80% and +9.90% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +15.06% annualized vs +11.26%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.5% compared with 13.6% for QLV. 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 -34.0% for QLV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.92. 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 QLV charges 0.08%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $8 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 1.49% for QLV.
Holdings Overlap
57.7% of IVV's money is in holdings QLV also owns. 82.5% of QLV's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of QLV is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
82 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 120 in QLV, against full books of 508 and 122.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 30 positions for QLV that do not appear in our book for IVV (12.7% of the fund), and 413 for IVV that do not appear in QLV (41.6%).
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 QLV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.98% | 6.41% | 1.57% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.86% | 5.71% | 1.15% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.44% | 6.35% | 0.91% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.01% | 2.51% | 1.50% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 0.93% | 4.27% | 3.34% |
| GOOGLAlphabet A Usd 0.001 | 3.19% | 1.90% | 1.29% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.98% | 1.90% | 1.08% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.56% | 1.44% | 1.12% |
| BRK.BBerkshire Hathaway B | 1.43% | 1.84% | 0.41% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 0.94% | 2.28% | 1.34% |
82.5% of QLV 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 QLV?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while QLV charges 0.08%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $5 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or QLV?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs +13.49% for QLV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), IVV annualized +15.06% vs +11.26% for QLV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or QLV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 16.5% annualized versus 13.6% for QLV. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs QLV -34.0%.
Should I hold both IVV and QLV?
IVV and QLV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, 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 QLV?
82.5% of QLV's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 82.5% of QLV's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 82 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 120 in QLV.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or QLV?
IVV yields 1.06% while QLV yields 1.49%, so QLV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QLV 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 0.92. QLV is less concentrated, with 35.8% 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.