IVV vs RGT
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Royce Global Value Trust Inc.
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. RGT delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | RGT | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 1.74% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | $68M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 109 | |
| YTD Return | +12.71% | +17.38% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.89% | +25.99% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.08% | +22.57% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.96% | +4.89% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 20.5% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -46.8% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Oct 18, 2013 |
IVV vs RGT Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Royce Global Value Trust Inc. (RGT) is a ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US). Over the past year IVV returned +21.89% while RGT returned +25.99%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.71% versus a gain of 17.38% for RGT.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.08% per year against +22.57% for RGT; over five years the annualized figures are +12.96% and +4.89% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, RGT has the edge at +7.64% annualized vs +7.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RGT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.5% 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 -46.8% for RGT. 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 0.82. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while RGT charges 1.74%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $174 annually, a gap of $171 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 1.09% for RGT.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and RGT share 1 holdings out of 612 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.1% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in IVV | Weight in RGT | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| TDY | 0.05% | 0.68% | 0.63% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or RGT?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while RGT charges 1.74%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $171 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or RGT?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.89% vs +25.99% for RGT, so RGT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), IVV annualized +7.00% vs +7.64% for RGT. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or RGT?
RGT has been the more volatile fund at 20.5% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs RGT -46.8%.
Should I hold both IVV and RGT?
IVV and RGT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.82, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and RGT?
IVV and RGT share 1 common holdings with a 0.1% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 612 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or RGT?
IVV yields 1.10% while RGT yields 1.09%, 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.