IVV vs QYLD
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF
Which is better, IVV or QYLD?
Large Cap Blend against Multi Alternative.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, QYLD over 1Y. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.1%.
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 | QYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.60% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $8.3B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 11.62% |
| Holdings | 508 | 105 |
| YTD Return | +12.51% | +12.59%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.57% | +22.25%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.27%Best | +14.84% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.95%Best | +8.16% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.6% | 11.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9% | -30.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,384Best | $14,802 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9%Best | 47.1% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Global X by mirae Asset |
| Category | Equity | Alternative |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Dec 11, 2013 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 12, 2013 to Sep 11, 2026 (12.7 years).
IVV vs QYLD 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 12.7 years both funds cover.
IVV vs QYLD Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) is an ETF from Global X by mirae Asset. Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while QYLD returned +22.25%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.51% versus a gain of 12.59% for QYLD.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.27% per year against +14.84% for QYLD; over five years the annualized figures are +12.95% and +8.16% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +12.77% annualized vs +2.98%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.6% compared with 11.0% for QYLD. 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 -30.7% for QYLD. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.84. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while QYLD charges 0.60%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $60 annually, a gap of $57 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 11.62% for QYLD.
Holdings Overlap
54.1% of IVV's money is in holdings QYLD also owns. 95.7% of QYLD's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of QYLD is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
87 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 102 in QYLD, against full books of 508 and 105.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 7 positions for QYLD that do not appear in our book for IVV (2.5% of the fund), and 408 for IVV that do not appear in QYLD (45.2%).
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 QYLD | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.98% | 8.61% | 0.63% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.86% | 7.82% | 0.96% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.44% | 6.09% | 0.65% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.01% | 4.49% | 0.48% |
| GOOGLAlphabet A Usd 0.001 | 3.19% | 3.19% | 0.00% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.51% | 4.76% | 3.25% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.98% | 2.87% | 0.11% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.56% | 2.97% | 0.41% |
| METAMeta Platforms, Inc. | 1.94% | 2.81% | 0.87% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc. | 1.18% | 3.39% | 2.21% |
95.7% of QYLD 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 QYLD?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while QYLD charges 0.60%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $57 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or QYLD?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs +22.25% for QYLD, so QYLD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), IVV annualized +12.77% vs +2.98% for QYLD. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or QYLD?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 14.6% annualized versus 11.0% for QYLD. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs QYLD -30.7%.
Should I hold both IVV and QYLD?
IVV and QYLD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.84, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and QYLD?
95.7% of QYLD's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 95.7% of QYLD's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 87 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 102 in QYLD.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or QYLD?
IVV yields 1.06% while QYLD yields 11.62%, so QYLD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QYLD better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, QYLD over 1Y. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.1%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.