IVV vs ROBT
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs First Trust Nasdaq Artificial Intelligence and Robotics ETF
Which is better, IVV or ROBT?
Large Cap Blend against Mid Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ROBT is less concentrated, with 20.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%.
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 | ROBT |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.65% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $770M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.02% |
| Holdings | 508 | 244 |
| YTD Return | +14.15% | +14.29%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.31%Best | +10.70% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +23.17%Best | +14.45% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.85%Best | +1.92% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.4%Best | 23.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9%Best | -44.5% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $19,128Best | $10,998 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8% | 20.0%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | First Trust Portfolios (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Mid Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Feb 21, 2018 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 22, 2018 to Sep 21, 2026 (8.6 years).
IVV vs ROBT 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 8.6 years both funds cover.
IVV vs ROBT Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and First Trust Nasdaq Artificial Intelligence and Robotics ETF (ROBT) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year IVV returned +17.31% while ROBT returned +10.70%. Year to date, IVV is up 14.15% versus a gain of 14.29% for ROBT.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +23.17% per year against +14.45% for ROBT; over five years the annualized figures are +13.85% and +1.92% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +14.05% annualized vs +8.57%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ROBT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 23.5% compared with 16.4% 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 -33.9% for IVV and -44.5% for ROBT. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.87. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while ROBT charges 0.65%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $65 annually, a gap of $62 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.02% for ROBT.
Holdings Overlap
44.0% of IVV's money is in holdings ROBT also owns. 31.3% of ROBT's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
39 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 114 in ROBT, against full books of 508 and 244.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 35 positions for ROBT that do not appear in our book for IVV (40.0% of the fund), and 443 for IVV that do not appear in ROBT (54.6%).
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.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in IVV | Weight in ROBT | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.07% | 0.75% | 7.32% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.02% | 0.39% | 6.63% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.69% | 0.81% | 4.88% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.84% | 0.69% | 3.15% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 0.64% | 2.36% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.65% | 0.59% | 2.06% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 1.26% | 0.64% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 0.47% | 1.89% | 1.42% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.63% | 0.71% | 0.92% |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 0.65% | 1.66% | 1.01% |
44.0% of IVV is already inside ROBT.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or ROBT?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while ROBT charges 0.65%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $62 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or ROBT?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.31% vs +10.70% for ROBT, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), IVV annualized +14.05% vs +8.57% for ROBT. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or ROBT?
ROBT has been the more volatile fund at 23.5% annualized versus 16.4% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs ROBT -44.5%.
Should I hold both IVV and ROBT?
IVV and ROBT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.87, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and ROBT?
44.0% of IVV's money is in holdings ROBT also owns. 31.3% of ROBT's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 39 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 114 in ROBT.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or ROBT?
IVV yields 1.06% while ROBT yields 0.02%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ROBT better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ROBT is less concentrated, with 20.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.