IVV vs RING
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. RING delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | RING | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.39% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $2.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 1.40% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 54 | |
| YTD Return | +14.50% | +4.98% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.02% | +57.39% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.80% | +52.92% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.37% | +25.47% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 37.9% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -80.2% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jan 31, 2012 |
IVV vs RING Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF (RING) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IVV returned +22.02% while RING returned +57.39%. Year to date, IVV is up 14.50% versus a gain of 4.98% for RING.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.80% per year against +52.92% for RING; over five years the annualized figures are +13.37% and +25.47% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.07% annualized vs +3.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RING has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 37.9% 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 -80.2% for RING. 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 0.21. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while RING charges 0.39%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $39 annually, a gap of $36 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 1.40% for RING.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and RING share 2 holdings out of 546 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.3% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or RING?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while RING charges 0.39%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $36 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or RING?
Over the past year IVV returned +22.02% vs +57.39% for RING, so RING leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), IVV annualized +7.07% vs +3.53% for RING. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or RING?
RING has been the more volatile fund at 37.9% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs RING -80.2%.
Should I hold both IVV and RING?
IVV and RING have a monthly-return correlation of 0.21, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and RING?
IVV and RING share 2 common holdings with a 0.3% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 546 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or RING?
IVV yields 1.09% while RING yields 1.40%, so RING 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.