IVV vs REVS
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Columbia Research Enhanced Value ETF
Which is better, IVV or REVS?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, REVS over 1Y. REVS is less concentrated, with 33.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%.
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 | REVS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.19% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $350M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 1.78% |
| Holdings | 508 | 310 |
| YTD Return | +11.03% | +17.44%Best |
| 1Y Return | +15.62% | +23.45%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.81%Best | +19.51% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.61%Best | +12.41% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.7% | 16.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9%Best | -37.9% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,109Best | $17,948 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8% | 33.2%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Columbia Threadneedle Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Sep 25, 2019 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 25, 2019 to Sep 16, 2026 (7 years).
IVV vs REVS 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 years both funds cover.
IVV vs REVS Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Columbia Research Enhanced Value ETF (REVS) is an ETF from Columbia Threadneedle Investments. Over the past year IVV returned +15.62% while REVS returned +23.45%. Year to date, IVV is up 11.03% versus a gain of 17.44% for REVS.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.81% per year against +19.51% for REVS; over five years the annualized figures are +12.61% and +12.41% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +15.51% annualized vs +13.30%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.7% compared with 16.5% for REVS. 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 -37.9% for REVS. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while REVS charges 0.19%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $19 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 1.78% for REVS.
Holdings Overlap
28.0% of IVV's money is in holdings REVS also owns. 85.7% of REVS's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of REVS is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
145 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 298 in REVS, against full books of 508 and 310.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 143 positions for REVS that do not appear in our book for IVV (12.5% of the fund), and 340 for IVV that do not appear in REVS (70.8%).
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 REVS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.02% | 8.29% | 1.27% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.69% | 7.23% | 1.54% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 0.61% | 3.80% | 3.19% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 1.83% | 0.07% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 0.58% | 2.88% | 2.30% |
| MOAltria Group Inc | 0.17% | 2.23% | 2.06% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 0.66% | 1.59% | 0.93% |
| CCitigroup Inc. | 0.34% | 1.87% | 1.53% |
| BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 0.21% | 1.80% | 1.59% |
| SCHWSchwab Strategic T | 0.27% | 1.65% | 1.38% |
85.7% of REVS 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 REVS?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while REVS charges 0.19%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $16 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or REVS?
Over the past year IVV returned +15.62% vs +23.45% for REVS, so REVS leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), IVV annualized +15.51% vs +13.30% for REVS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or REVS?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 16.7% annualized versus 16.5% for REVS. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs REVS -37.9%.
Should I hold both IVV and REVS?
IVV and REVS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, 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 REVS?
85.7% of REVS's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 85.7% of REVS's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 145 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 298 in REVS.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or REVS?
IVV yields 1.06% while REVS yields 1.78%, so REVS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is REVS better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, REVS over 1Y. REVS is less concentrated, with 33.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.