IVV vs RMT
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Royce Micro-Cap Trust Inc.
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. RMT delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | RMT | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 1.35% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | $477M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 5.36% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 176 | |
| YTD Return | +13.22% | +39.48% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.62% | +57.07% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.17% | +26.90% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.42% | +13.89% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 23.5% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -80.4% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Dec 14, 1993 |
IVV vs RMT Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Royce Micro-Cap Trust Inc. (RMT) is a ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US). Over the past year IVV returned +21.62% while RMT returned +57.07%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.22% versus a gain of 39.48% for RMT.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.17% per year against +26.90% for RMT; over five years the annualized figures are +13.42% and +13.89% respectively. Across the full 23-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.02% annualized vs +2.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RMT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 23.5% 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 -80.4% for RMT. 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 0.84. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while RMT charges 1.35%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $135 annually, a gap of $132 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 5.36% for RMT.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and RMT share 1 holdings out of 678 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 RMT | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| CMG | 0.07% | 0.17% | 0.10% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or RMT?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while RMT charges 1.35%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $132 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or RMT?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.62% vs +57.07% for RMT, so RMT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (23 years), IVV annualized +7.02% vs +2.32% for RMT. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or RMT?
RMT has been the more volatile fund at 23.5% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs RMT -80.4%.
Should I hold both IVV and RMT?
IVV and RMT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.84, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and RMT?
IVV and RMT share 1 common holdings with a 0.1% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 678 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or RMT?
IVV yields 1.10% while RMT yields 5.36%, so RMT 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.