IVV vs SWZ
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Total Return Securities Fund
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 | SWZ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 1.62% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | $96M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 0.00% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 27 | |
| YTD Return | +12.71% | -4.82% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.89% | -2.15% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.08% | +6.57% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.96% | +2.35% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 27.8% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -57.7% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Total Return Securities Fund | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Aug 27, 1987 |
IVV vs SWZ Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Total Return Securities Fund (SWZ) is a ETF from Total Return Securities Fund. Over the past year IVV returned +21.89% while SWZ returned -2.15%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.71% versus a loss of 4.82% for SWZ.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.08% per year against +6.57% for SWZ; over five years the annualized figures are +12.96% and +2.35% respectively. Across the full 26-year window we track, SWZ has the edge at +11.57% annualized vs +7.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SWZ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 27.8% 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 -57.7% for SWZ. 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 0.66. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while SWZ charges 1.62%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $162 annually, a gap of $159 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 0.00% for SWZ.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and SWZ share 3 holdings out of 526 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.4% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or SWZ?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while SWZ charges 1.62%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $159 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or SWZ?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.89% vs -2.15% for SWZ, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (26 years), IVV annualized +7.00% vs +11.57% for SWZ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or SWZ?
SWZ has been the more volatile fund at 27.8% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs SWZ -57.7%.
Should I hold both IVV and SWZ?
IVV and SWZ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.66, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and SWZ?
IVV and SWZ share 3 common holdings with a 0.4% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 526 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or SWZ?
IVV yields 1.10% while SWZ yields 0.00%, so IVV 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.