IVV vs RFCI
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs ALPS Dynamic Core Income ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | RFCI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.51% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $15M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 4.54% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 47 | |
| YTD Return | +13.72% | -0.03% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.64% | +2.02% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.55% | +4.76% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.27% | +1.40% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 4.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -13.2% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | ALPS Advisors | |
| Category | Equity | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jun 13, 2016 |
IVV vs RFCI Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and ALPS Dynamic Core Income ETF (RFCI) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors. Over the past year IVV returned +21.64% while RFCI returned +2.02%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.72% versus a loss of 0.03% for RFCI.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.55% per year against +4.76% for RFCI; over five years the annualized figures are +13.27% and +1.40% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.04% annualized vs +1.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 4.3% for RFCI. 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 -13.2% for RFCI. 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 0.46. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while RFCI charges 0.51%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $51 annually, a gap of $48 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 4.54% for RFCI.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and RFCI share 0 holdings out of 543 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or RFCI?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while RFCI charges 0.51%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $48 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or RFCI?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.64% vs +2.02% for RFCI, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), IVV annualized +7.04% vs +1.05% for RFCI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or RFCI?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 4.3% for RFCI. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs RFCI -13.2%.
Should I hold both IVV and RFCI?
IVV and RFCI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.46, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and RFCI?
IVV and RFCI share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 543 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or RFCI?
IVV yields 1.09% while RFCI yields 4.54%, so RFCI 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.