IVV vs SMLF
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs iShares US Small-Cap Equity Factor ETF
Which is better, IVV or SMLF?
Large Cap Blend against Small Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. SMLF is less concentrated, with 8.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%.
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 | SMLF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.15% |
| AUM | $886.7B | $4.3B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 1.02% |
| Holdings | 508 | 934 |
| YTD Return | +12.70% | +15.67%Best |
| 1Y Return | +19.36%Best | +18.66% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.16%Best | +19.07% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.75%Best | +11.04% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1%Best | 18.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9%Best | -43.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,221Best | $16,881 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9% | 8.1%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Small Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Apr 28, 2015 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 30, 2015 to Sep 8, 2026 (11.4 years).
IVV vs SMLF 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 11.4 years both funds cover.
IVV vs SMLF Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares US Small-Cap Equity Factor ETF (SMLF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IVV returned +19.36% while SMLF returned +18.66%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.70% versus a gain of 15.67% for SMLF.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.16% per year against +19.07% for SMLF; over five years the annualized figures are +12.75% and +11.04% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +12.87% annualized vs +10.80%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SMLF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.9% 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 -33.9% for IVV and -43.1% for SMLF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.87. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while SMLF charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $15 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 1.02% for SMLF.
Holdings Overlap
1.1% of IVV's money is in holdings SMLF also owns. 10.5% of SMLF's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
SMLF and IVV share little of their money.
42 positions in common, counted across the 504 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 862 in SMLF, against full books of 508 and 934.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 778 positions for SMLF that do not appear in our book for IVV (83.2% of the fund), and 452 for IVV that do not appear in SMLF (98.1%).
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 SMLF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| XTSLABlackrock Cash Funds: Treasury, Sl Agency Shares | 0.18% | 0.99% | 0.81% |
| EMEEmcor Group Inc (eme) | 0.05% | 0.91% | 0.86% |
| IBKRInteractive Brokers Group Inc | 0.06% | 0.88% | 0.82% |
| JBLJabil, Inc. | 0.05% | 0.77% | 0.72% |
| TPRTapestry Inc | 0.05% | 0.59% | 0.54% |
| WSMWilliams-sonoma Inc | 0.04% | 0.57% | 0.53% |
| MRNAMrna Uw Equity | 0.03% | 0.50% | 0.47% |
| HASHasbro Inc | 0.02% | 0.33% | 0.31% |
| RLRalph Lauren Corp. Class A | 0.02% | 0.33% | 0.31% |
| CASYCasey's General Stores Inc | 0.05% | 0.30% | 0.25% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IVV and SMLF you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or SMLF?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while SMLF charges 0.15%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $12 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or SMLF?
Over the past year IVV returned +19.36% vs +18.66% for SMLF, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), IVV annualized +12.87% vs +10.80% for SMLF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or SMLF?
SMLF has been the more volatile fund at 18.9% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs SMLF -43.1%.
Should I hold both IVV and SMLF?
IVV and SMLF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.87, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and SMLF?
10.5% of SMLF's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 10.5% of SMLF's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 42 positions in common, counted across the 504 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 862 in SMLF.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or SMLF?
IVV yields 1.10% while SMLF yields 1.02%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SMLF better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. SMLF is less concentrated, with 8.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.