IVV vs TAN
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Invesco Solar ETF
Which is better, IVV or TAN?
Large Cap Blend against Mid Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 58.5%.
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 | TAN |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.70% |
| AUM | $886.7B | $1.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 508 | 44 |
| YTD Return | +13.39%Best | -6.90% |
| 1Y Return | +20.08%Best | +14.33% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.29%Best | -6.07% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.88%Best | -10.83% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.7%Best | 43.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -52.4%Best | -95.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,327Best | $5,638 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9%Best | 58.5% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Mid Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Apr 15, 2008 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 15, 2008 to Sep 4, 2026 (18.4 years).
IVV vs TAN 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 18.4 years both funds cover.
IVV vs TAN Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IVV returned +20.08% while TAN returned +14.33%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.39% versus a loss of 6.90% for TAN.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.29% per year against -6.07% for TAN; over five years the annualized figures are +12.88% and -10.83% respectively. Across the full 18-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +10.48% annualized vs -7.28%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
TAN has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 43.6% compared with 15.7% 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 -52.4% for IVV and -95.3% for TAN. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.62. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while TAN charges 0.70%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $70 annually, a gap of $67 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 0.00% for TAN.
Holdings Overlap
10.6% of TAN's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
TAN and IVV share little of their money.
1 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 35 in TAN, against full books of 508 and 44.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 11 positions for TAN that do not appear in our book for IVV (42.2% of the fund), and 496 for IVV that do not appear in TAN (99.3%).
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 TAN | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| FSLRFirst Solar, Inc | 0.04% | 10.63% | 10.59% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IVV and TAN 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 TAN?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while TAN charges 0.70%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $67 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or TAN?
Over the past year IVV returned +20.08% vs +14.33% for TAN, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (18 years), IVV annualized +10.48% vs -7.28% for TAN. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or TAN?
TAN has been the more volatile fund at 43.6% annualized versus 15.7% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -52.4% vs TAN -95.3%.
Should I hold both IVV and TAN?
IVV and TAN have a monthly-return correlation of 0.62, 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 TAN?
10.6% of TAN's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 10.6% of TAN's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 1 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 35 in TAN.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or TAN?
IVV yields 1.10% while TAN yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TAN better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 58.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.