IVV vs RWK
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF
Which is better, IVV or RWK?
Large Cap Blend against Mid Cap Value.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y, RWK over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. RWK is less concentrated, with 20.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%.
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 | RWK |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.39% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $1.3B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 1.01% |
| Holdings | 508 | 402 |
| YTD Return | +12.24% | +14.23%Best |
| 1Y Return | +18.61%Best | +15.44% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.98%Best | +16.25% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.76%Best | +11.53% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.7%Best | 21.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -52.4%Best | -56.9% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,230Best | $17,257 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9% | 20.1%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Mid Cap Value |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Feb 20, 2008 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 22, 2008 to Sep 9, 2026 (18.5 years).
IVV vs RWK 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 18.5 years both funds cover.
IVV vs RWK Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF (RWK) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IVV returned +18.61% while RWK returned +15.44%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.24% versus a gain of 14.23% for RWK.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.98% per year against +16.25% for RWK; over five years the annualized figures are +12.76% and +11.53% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, RWK has the edge at +10.38% annualized vs +10.23%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RWK has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.6% compared with 15.7% 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 -52.4% for IVV and -56.9% for RWK. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while RWK 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 1.06% against 1.01% for RWK.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 505 holdings in IVV and 394 in RWK, totalling 100.0% and 99.9% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 394 in RWK, against full books of 508 and 402.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 386 positions for RWK that do not appear in our book for IVV (95.8% of the fund), and 496 for IVV that do not appear in RWK (99.3%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IVV and RWK you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or RWK?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while RWK charges 0.39%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $36 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or RWK?
Over the past year IVV returned +18.61% vs +15.44% for RWK, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), IVV annualized +10.23% vs +10.38% for RWK. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or RWK?
RWK has been the more volatile fund at 21.6% annualized versus 15.7% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -52.4% vs RWK -56.9%.
Should I hold both IVV and RWK?
IVV and RWK have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or RWK?
IVV yields 1.06% while RWK yields 1.01%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RWK better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y, RWK over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. RWK is less concentrated, with 20.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.