IVV vs RFG
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Invesco S&P Midcap 400 Pure Growth ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. RFG delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | RFG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.35% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | $361M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 0.15% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 100 | |
| YTD Return | +12.28% | +15.79% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.94% | +25.18% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.81% | +16.20% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.05% | +7.50% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 19.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -52.0% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Mar 1, 2006 |
IVV vs RFG Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco S&P Midcap 400 Pure Growth ETF (RFG) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IVV returned +20.94% while RFG returned +25.18%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.28% versus a gain of 15.79% for RFG.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.81% per year against +16.20% for RFG; over five years the annualized figures are +13.05% and +7.50% respectively. Across the full 21-year window we track, RFG has the edge at +9.36% annualized vs +6.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RFG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.6% compared with 15.1% 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 -52.0% for RFG. 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 0.88. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while RFG 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 1.10% against 0.15% for RFG.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and RFG share 0 holdings out of 604 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 RFG?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while RFG charges 0.35%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $32 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or RFG?
Over the past year IVV returned +20.94% vs +25.18% for RFG, so RFG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (21 years), IVV annualized +6.98% vs +9.36% for RFG. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or RFG?
RFG has been the more volatile fund at 19.6% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs RFG -52.0%.
Should I hold both IVV and RFG?
IVV and RFG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.88, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and RFG?
IVV and RFG share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 604 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or RFG?
IVV yields 1.10% while RFG yields 0.15%, so IVV 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.