IVV vs RSPH
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF
Which is better, IVV or RSPH?
Each has led over a different period.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y and 5Y, RSPH over 1Y and the full window. RSPH is less concentrated, with 22.4% 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 | RSPH |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.40% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $839M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.62% |
| Holdings | 508 | 62 |
| YTD Return | +12.39% | +15.19%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.61% | +26.96%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.38%Best | +9.97% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.51%Best | +4.19% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.4%Best | 15.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -41.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,844Best | $12,278 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8% | 22.4%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Nov 1, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 7, 2006 to Sep 18, 2026 (19.9 years).
IVV vs RSPH 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 19.9 years both funds cover.
IVV vs RSPH Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF (RSPH) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% while RSPH returned +26.96%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.39% versus a gain of 15.19% for RSPH.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.38% per year against +9.97% for RSPH; over five years the annualized figures are +13.51% and +4.19% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, RSPH has the edge at +10.70% annualized vs +9.41%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RSPH has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.8% compared with 15.4% 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 -56.5% for IVV and -41.1% for RSPH. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.81. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while RSPH charges 0.40%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $40 annually, a gap of $37 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.62% for RSPH.
Holdings Overlap
9.0% of IVV's money is in holdings RSPH also owns. 93.4% of RSPH's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of RSPH is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
56 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 61 in RSPH, against full books of 508 and 62.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 5 positions for RSPH that do not appear in our book for IVV (6.6% of the fund), and 428 for IVV that do not appear in RSPH (89.6%).
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 RSPH | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRNAModerna therapeutics | 0.07% | 4.39% | 4.32% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.38% | 1.47% | 0.09% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.97% | 1.61% | 0.64% |
| VEEVVeeva Systems Inc | 0.06% | 2.51% | 2.45% |
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 0.55% | 1.78% | 1.23% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 0.68% | 1.64% | 0.96% |
| CRLCharles River Laboratories International Inc | 0.02% | 2.23% | 2.21% |
| TMOThermo Fisherscientific Inc. | 0.35% | 1.84% | 1.49% |
| AMGNAmgen Inc. | 0.35% | 1.84% | 1.49% |
| ABTAbbott Laboratories | 0.29% | 1.78% | 1.49% |
93.4% of RSPH is already inside IVV.
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 RSPH?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while RSPH charges 0.40%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $37 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or RSPH?
Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% vs +26.96% for RSPH, so RSPH leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), IVV annualized +9.41% vs +10.70% for RSPH. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or RSPH?
RSPH has been the more volatile fund at 15.8% annualized versus 15.4% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs RSPH -41.1%.
Should I hold both IVV and RSPH?
IVV and RSPH have a monthly-return correlation of 0.81, 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 RSPH?
93.4% of RSPH's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 93.4% of RSPH's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 56 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 61 in RSPH.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or RSPH?
IVV yields 1.06% while RSPH yields 0.62%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RSPH better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y and 5Y, RSPH over 1Y and the full window. RSPH is less concentrated, with 22.4% 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.