IVV vs RFM
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs RiverNorth Flexible Municipal Income Fund, Inc.
Which is better, IVV or RFM?
IVV has been ahead.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.0%.
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 | RFM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 3.68% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $94M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 6.92% |
| Holdings | 508 | 93 |
| YTD Return | +11.57%Best | +3.98% |
| 1Y Return | +17.57%Best | +5.25% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.71%Best | +3.94% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.80%Best | -2.08% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.9% | 15.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -24.5%Best | -33.8% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,262Best | $9,002 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9%Best | 59.0% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | RiverNorth |
| Category | Equity | Fixed Income |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | - |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Mar 26, 2020 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 27, 2020 to Sep 10, 2026 (6.5 years).
IVV vs RFM 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 6.5 years both funds cover.
IVV vs RFM Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and RiverNorth Flexible Municipal Income Fund, Inc. (RFM) is an ETF from RiverNorth. Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while RFM returned +5.25%. Year to date, IVV is up 11.57% versus a gain of 3.98% for RFM.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.71% per year against +3.94% for RFM; over five years the annualized figures are +12.80% and -2.08% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +19.94% annualized vs +1.69%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.9% compared with 15.0% for RFM. 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 -33.8% for RFM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.61. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while RFM charges 3.68%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $368 annually, a gap of $365 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 6.92% for RFM.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 505 holdings in IVV and 47 in RFM, totalling 100.0% and 103.0% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
The two holdings books were reported 127 days apart, IVV as of Aug 5, 2026 and RFM as of Mar 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
0 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 47 in RFM, against full books of 508 and 93.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 46 positions for RFM that do not appear in our book for IVV (103.0% of the fund), and 495 for IVV that do not appear in RFM (99.3%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IVV and RFM you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or RFM?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while RFM charges 3.68%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $365 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or RFM?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs +5.25% for RFM, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), IVV annualized +19.94% vs +1.69% for RFM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or RFM?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.9% annualized versus 15.0% for RFM. Worst drawdown: IVV -24.5% vs RFM -33.8%.
Should I hold both IVV and RFM?
IVV and RFM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.61, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or RFM?
IVV yields 1.06% while RFM yields 6.92%, so RFM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RFM better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.