IVV vs QYLG
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF
Which is better, IVV or QYLG?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, QYLG over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.8%.
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 | QYLG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.35% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $169M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 17.17% |
| Holdings | 508 | 106 |
| YTD Return | +12.01% | +14.64%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.48% | +21.17%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.21%Best | +20.30% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.95%Best | +11.22% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.4% | 15.2%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -24.5%Best | -30.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,384Best | $17,018 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8%Best | 46.8% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | GLOBALXETFS |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Sep 18, 2020 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 22, 2020 to Sep 14, 2026 (6 years).
IVV vs QYLG 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 6 years both funds cover.
IVV vs QYLG Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF (QYLG) is an ETF from GLOBALXETFS. Over the past year IVV returned +16.48% while QYLG returned +21.17%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.01% versus a gain of 14.64% for QYLG.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.21% per year against +20.30% for QYLG; over five years the annualized figures are +12.95% and +11.22% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +16.40% annualized vs +13.72%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.4% compared with 15.2% for QYLG. 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 -24.5% for IVV and -30.0% for QYLG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.91. 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 QYLG charges 0.35%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $35 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 17.17% for QYLG.
Holdings Overlap
54.0% of IVV's money is in holdings QYLG also owns. 95.3% of QYLG's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of QYLG is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
87 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 102 in QYLG, against full books of 508 and 106.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 8 positions for QYLG that do not appear in our book for IVV (3.0% of the fund), and 395 for IVV that do not appear in QYLG (44.6%).
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 QYLG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.07% | 8.60% | 0.53% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.02% | 7.49% | 0.47% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.69% | 6.07% | 0.38% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.84% | 4.50% | 0.66% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.63% | 4.81% | 3.18% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 3.18% | 0.18% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.65% | 2.83% | 0.18% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.39% | 2.94% | 0.55% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 2.73% | 0.83% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.16% | 3.41% | 2.25% |
95.3% of QYLG 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 QYLG?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while QYLG charges 0.35%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $32 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or QYLG?
Over the past year IVV returned +16.48% vs +21.17% for QYLG, so QYLG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), IVV annualized +16.40% vs +13.72% for QYLG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or QYLG?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.4% annualized versus 15.2% for QYLG. Worst drawdown: IVV -24.5% vs QYLG -30.0%.
Should I hold both IVV and QYLG?
IVV and QYLG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, 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 QYLG?
95.3% of QYLG's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 95.3% of QYLG's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 87 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 102 in QYLG.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or QYLG?
IVV yields 1.06% while QYLG yields 17.17%, so QYLG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QYLG better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, QYLG over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.