IVV vs QMOM
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Alpha Architect US Quantitative Momentum ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | QMOM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.28% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | $447M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 0.48% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 52 | |
| YTD Return | +13.51% | +13.15% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.65% | +20.53% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.94% | +20.35% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.95% | +8.90% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 21.9% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -39.1% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Alpha Architect | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Dec 1, 2015 |
IVV vs QMOM Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Alpha Architect US Quantitative Momentum ETF (QMOM) is a ETF from Alpha Architect. Over the past year IVV returned +20.65% while QMOM returned +20.53%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.51% versus a gain of 13.15% for QMOM.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.94% per year against +20.35% for QMOM; over five years the annualized figures are +12.95% and +8.90% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, QMOM has the edge at +11.38% annualized vs +7.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QMOM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.9% compared with 15.1% 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 -56.5% for IVV and -39.1% for QMOM. 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 0.78. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while QMOM charges 0.28%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $28 annually, a gap of $25 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 0.48% for QMOM.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and QMOM share 24 holdings out of 549 unique holdings combined, representing a 3.6% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or QMOM?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while QMOM charges 0.28%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $25 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or QMOM?
Over the past year IVV returned +20.65% vs +20.53% for QMOM, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), IVV annualized +7.02% vs +11.38% for QMOM. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or QMOM?
QMOM has been the more volatile fund at 21.9% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs QMOM -39.1%.
Should I hold both IVV and QMOM?
IVV and QMOM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.78, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and QMOM?
IVV and QMOM share 24 common holdings with a 3.6% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 549 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or QMOM?
IVV yields 1.10% while QMOM yields 0.48%, so IVV 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.