IVV vs RWM
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs ProShares Short Russell2000
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | RWM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.95% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | $108M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 3.74% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 10 | |
| YTD Return | +12.71% | -16.26% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.89% | -23.39% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.08% | -13.69% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.96% | -6.65% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 20.9% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -96.9% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | ProShares | |
| Category | Equity | Alternative | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jan 23, 2007 |
IVV vs RWM Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) is a ETF from ProShares. Over the past year IVV returned +21.89% while RWM returned -23.39%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.71% versus a loss of 16.26% for RWM.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.08% per year against -13.69% for RWM; over five years the annualized figures are +12.96% and -6.65% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.00% annualized vs -13.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RWM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.9% 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 -96.9% for RWM. 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 -0.82. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while RWM charges 0.95%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $95 annually, a gap of $92 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 3.74% for RWM.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and RWM share 0 holdings out of 506 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or RWM?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while RWM charges 0.95%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $92 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or RWM?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.89% vs -23.39% for RWM, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), IVV annualized +7.00% vs -13.80% for RWM. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or RWM?
RWM has been the more volatile fund at 20.9% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs RWM -96.9%.
Should I hold both IVV and RWM?
IVV and RWM have a monthly-return correlation of -0.82, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and RWM?
IVV and RWM share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 506 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or RWM?
IVV yields 1.10% while RWM yields 3.74%, so RWM 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.