IVV vs RYLG
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. RYLG delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | RYLG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.35% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | $9M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 10.35% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 4 | |
| YTD Return | +12.28% | +16.99% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.94% | +28.04% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.81% | +14.35% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.05% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 13.9% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -22.8% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Global X by mirae Asset | |
| Category | Equity | Alternative | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Oct 4, 2022 |
IVV vs RYLG Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) is a ETF from Global X by mirae Asset. Over the past year IVV returned +20.94% while RYLG returned +28.04%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.28% versus a gain of 16.99% for RYLG.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.81% per year against +14.35% for RYLG. Across the full 4-year window we track, RYLG has the edge at +11.27% annualized vs +6.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 13.9% for RYLG. 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 -22.8% for RYLG. 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 0.79. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while RYLG charges 0.35%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $35 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 10.35% for RYLG.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and RYLG 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 RYLG?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while RYLG charges 0.35%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $32 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or RYLG?
Over the past year IVV returned +20.94% vs +28.04% for RYLG, so RYLG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IVV annualized +6.98% vs +11.27% for RYLG. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or RYLG?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 13.9% for RYLG. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs RYLG -22.8%.
Should I hold both IVV and RYLG?
IVV and RYLG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.79, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and RYLG?
IVV and RYLG share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 506 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or RYLG?
IVV yields 1.10% while RYLG yields 10.35%, so RYLG 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.