IVV vs RECS
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF
Which is better, IVV or RECS?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window, RECS over 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.2%.
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 | RECS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.15% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $6.0B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 1.00% |
| Holdings | 508 | 368 |
| YTD Return | +13.32%Best | +10.99% |
| 1Y Return | +17.08%Best | +14.79% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.72% | +22.77%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.20% | +13.70%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.9%Best | 16.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -34.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,588 | $19,002Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8%Best | 41.2% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Columbia Threadneedle Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Sep 25, 2019 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 15, 2001 to Sep 23, 2026 (25.1 years).
IVV vs RECS 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 25.1 years both funds cover.
IVV vs RECS Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) is an ETF from Columbia Threadneedle Investments. Over the past year IVV returned +17.08% while RECS returned +14.79%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.32% versus a gain of 10.99% for RECS.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.72% per year against +22.77% for RECS; over five years the annualized figures are +13.20% and +13.70% respectively. Across the full 25-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +8.10% annualized vs +4.01%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RECS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.4% compared with 14.9% 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 -34.3% for RECS. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. 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 RECS charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $15 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 1.00% for RECS.
Holdings Overlap
37.6% of IVV's money is in holdings RECS also owns. 85.3% of RECS's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of RECS is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
170 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 349 in RECS, against full books of 508 and 368.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 168 positions for RECS that do not appear in our book for IVV (12.8% of the fund), and 315 for IVV that do not appear in RECS (61.3%).
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 RECS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.07% | 12.00% | 3.93% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.02% | 11.74% | 4.72% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 4.63% | 2.73% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.63% | 2.19% | 0.56% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 0.72% | 2.42% | 1.70% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 0.61% | 2.03% | 1.42% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 0.58% | 1.58% | 1.00% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 0.66% | 1.03% | 0.37% |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 0.65% | 1.00% | 0.35% |
| TJXTjx Cos Inc | 0.22% | 1.32% | 1.10% |
85.3% of RECS 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 RECS?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while RECS charges 0.15%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $12 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or RECS?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.08% vs +14.79% for RECS, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (25 years), IVV annualized +8.10% vs +4.01% for RECS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or RECS?
RECS has been the more volatile fund at 16.4% annualized versus 14.9% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs RECS -34.3%.
Should I hold both IVV and RECS?
IVV and RECS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, 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 RECS?
85.3% of RECS's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 85.3% of RECS's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 170 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 349 in RECS.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or RECS?
IVV yields 1.06% while RECS yields 1.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RECS better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window, RECS over 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.