IVV vs SGLC
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs SGI US Large Cap Core ETF
Which is better, IVV or SGLC?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. SGLC led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 40.4%.
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 | SGLC |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.85% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $211M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.20% |
| Holdings | 508 | 162 |
| YTD Return | +12.39% | +17.73%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.61% | +24.14%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.38% | +21.88%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.51% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.5%Best | 13.0% |
| Max Drawdown | -18.8%Best | -20.2% |
| $10,000 over 3.5 years | $19,606 | $19,936Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8%Best | 40.4% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Summit Global Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Mar 31, 2023 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.5 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 31, 2023 to Sep 18, 2026 (3.5 years).
IVV vs SGLC 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 3.5 years both funds cover.
IVV vs SGLC Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and SGI US Large Cap Core ETF (SGLC) is an ETF from Summit Global Investments. Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% while SGLC returned +24.14%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.39% versus a gain of 17.73% for SGLC.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.38% per year against +21.88% for SGLC. Across the full 4-year window we track, SGLC has the edge at +21.79% annualized vs +21.21%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SGLC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13.0% compared with 12.5% 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 -18.8% for IVV and -20.2% for SGLC. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.97. 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 SGLC charges 0.85%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $85 annually, a gap of $82 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.20% for SGLC.
Holdings Overlap
71.0% of IVV's money is in holdings SGLC also owns. 98.0% of SGLC's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of SGLC is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
136 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 139 in SGLC, against full books of 508 and 162.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 3 positions for SGLC that do not appear in our book for IVV (2.1% of the fund), and 346 for IVV that do not appear in SGLC (27.6%).
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 SGLC | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.07% | 8.47% | 0.40% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.02% | 6.72% | 0.30% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.69% | 5.91% | 0.22% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.84% | 4.30% | 0.46% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 3.41% | 0.41% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.65% | 2.51% | 0.14% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.39% | 2.64% | 0.25% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 2.43% | 0.53% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.63% | 2.23% | 0.60% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.44% | 1.73% | 0.29% |
98.0% of SGLC 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 SGLC?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while SGLC charges 0.85%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $82 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or SGLC?
Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% vs +24.14% for SGLC, so SGLC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IVV annualized +21.21% vs +21.79% for SGLC. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or SGLC?
SGLC has been the more volatile fund at 13.0% annualized versus 12.5% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs SGLC -20.2%.
Should I hold both IVV and SGLC?
IVV and SGLC have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, 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 SGLC?
98.0% of SGLC's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 98.0% of SGLC's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 136 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 139 in SGLC.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or SGLC?
IVV yields 1.06% while SGLC yields 0.20%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SGLC better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. SGLC led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 40.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.