IVV vs SHRT
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Gotham Short Strategies ETF
Which is better, IVV or SHRT?
Opposite sides of the same exposure.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two move opposite each other, correlation -0.54, so holding both offsets the exposure while paying both fees. SHRT is less concentrated, with 27.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.1%.
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 | SHRT |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 1.35% |
| AUM | $882.6B | $13M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 508 | 625 |
| YTD Return | +13.60%Best | -10.56% |
| 1Y Return | +16.32%Best | -8.28% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +23.81%Best | -6.48% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +14.03% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 11.6%Best | 12.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -18.8%Best | -27.8% |
| $10,000 over 2.9 years | $18,339Best | $8,234 |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.1% | 27.2%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Gotham ETFs |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Nov 6, 2023 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 6, 2023 to Oct 2, 2026 (2.9 years).
IVV vs SHRT 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 2.9 years both funds cover.
IVV vs SHRT Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Gotham Short Strategies ETF (SHRT) is an ETF from Gotham ETFs. Over the past year IVV returned +16.32% while SHRT returned -8.28%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.60% versus a loss of 10.56% for SHRT.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +23.81% per year against -6.48% for SHRT.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SHRT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.9% compared with 11.6% 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 -27.8% for SHRT. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at -0.54. They move opposite each other. Holding both offsets the exposure rather than spreading it, while paying both funds' fees.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while SHRT charges 1.35%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $135 annually, a gap of $132 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.08% for SHRT.
Holdings Overlap
40.3% of IVV's money is in holdings SHRT also owns. 40.1% of SHRT's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
They hold the same names on opposite sides, so owning both offsets the exposure rather than doubling it.
136 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 372 in SHRT, against full books of 508 and 625.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 94 positions for SHRT that do not appear in our book for IVV (50.1% of the fund), and 361 for IVV that do not appear in SHRT (59.0%).
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 SHRT | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.39% | -1.59% | 8.98% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.57% | -0.72% | 6.29% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.80% | -1.32% | 5.12% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.34% | 0.96% | 0.38% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 1.04% | 1.09% | 0.05% |
| DDDupont De Nemou | 0.03% | 1.98% | 1.95% |
| LMTLockheed Martin Corp | 0.16% | 1.74% | 1.58% |
| HPEHewlett Packard Enterprise Co | 0.12% | 1.67% | 1.55% |
| OXYOccidental Petroleum Corp. | 0.07% | 1.68% | 1.61% |
| CNCCentene | 0.05% | 1.60% | 1.55% |
40.3% of IVV is already inside SHRT.
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 SHRT?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while SHRT charges 1.35%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $132 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or SHRT?
Over the past year IVV returned +16.32% vs -8.28% for SHRT, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or SHRT?
SHRT has been the more volatile fund at 12.9% annualized versus 11.6% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs SHRT -27.8%.
Should I hold both IVV and SHRT?
IVV and SHRT have a monthly-return correlation of -0.54, so they move opposite each other. Holding both offsets the exposure rather than spreading it, and pays both funds' fees on the way. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and SHRT?
40.3% of IVV's money is in holdings SHRT also owns. 40.1% of SHRT's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 136 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 372 in SHRT.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or SHRT?
IVV yields 1.06% while SHRT yields 0.08%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SHRT better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two move opposite each other, correlation -0.54, so holding both offsets the exposure while paying both fees. SHRT is less concentrated, with 27.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.1%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.