IVV vs RWL
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF
Which is better, IVV or RWL?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y and the full window, RWL over 1Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. RWL is less concentrated, with 23.3% 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 | RWL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.39% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $10.0B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 1.20% |
| Holdings | 508 | 507 |
| YTD Return | +11.51% | +16.32%Best |
| 1Y Return | +15.96% | +23.28%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.01%Best | +19.77% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.66% | +13.86%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.7%Best | 16.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -52.4%Best | -55.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,149 | $19,136Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8% | 23.3%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Feb 19, 2008 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 22, 2008 to Sep 15, 2026 (18.6 years).
IVV vs RWL 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 18.6 years both funds cover.
IVV vs RWL Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IVV returned +15.96% while RWL returned +23.28%. Year to date, IVV is up 11.51% versus a gain of 16.32% for RWL.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.01% per year against +19.77% for RWL; over five years the annualized figures are +12.66% and +13.86% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +10.18% annualized vs +9.99%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RWL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.5% 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 -55.3% for RWL. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.95. 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 RWL 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 1.20% for RWL.
Holdings Overlap
96.4% of IVV's money is in holdings RWL also owns. 96.5% of RWL's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of RWL is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
472 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 496 in RWL, against full books of 508 and 507.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 20 positions for RWL that do not appear in our book for IVV (2.6% of the fund), and 12 for IVV that do not appear in RWL (2.2%).
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 RWL | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.07% | 1.37% | 6.70% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.02% | 2.41% | 4.61% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.84% | 3.98% | 0.14% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.69% | 2.00% | 3.69% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 0.99% | 2.01% |
| WMTWalmart, Inc. | 0.69% | 3.11% | 2.42% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.39% | 0.99% | 1.40% |
| BRK.BBerkshire Hathaway Inc Brk/B Us Equity | 1.39% | 1.92% | 0.53% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.44% | 1.61% | 0.17% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.65% | 0.37% | 2.28% |
96.5% of RWL 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 RWL?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while RWL charges 0.39%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $36 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or RWL?
Over the past year IVV returned +15.96% vs +23.28% for RWL, so RWL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), IVV annualized +10.18% vs +9.99% for RWL. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or RWL?
RWL has been the more volatile fund at 16.5% annualized versus 15.7% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -52.4% vs RWL -55.3%.
Should I hold both IVV and RWL?
IVV and RWL have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, 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.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and RWL?
96.5% of RWL's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 96.5% of RWL's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 472 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 496 in RWL.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or RWL?
IVV yields 1.06% while RWL yields 1.20%, so RWL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RWL better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y and the full window, RWL over 1Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. RWL is less concentrated, with 23.3% 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.