IVV vs TCHP
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF
Which is better, IVV or TCHP?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 5Y and the full window, TCHP over 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.7%.
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 | TCHP |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.57% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $2.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 508 | 65 |
| YTD Return | +12.27%Best | +1.33% |
| 1Y Return | +17.04%Best | +3.93% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.24% | +21.27%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.08%Best | +8.48% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.4%Best | 19.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -24.5%Best | -42.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,490Best | $15,023 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8%Best | 56.7% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | T.Rowe Price |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Aug 4, 2020 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 5, 2020 to Sep 17, 2026 (6.1 years).
IVV vs TCHP 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 6.1 years both funds cover.
IVV vs TCHP Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF (TCHP) is an ETF from T.Rowe Price. Over the past year IVV returned +17.04% while TCHP returned +3.93%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.27% versus a gain of 1.33% for TCHP.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.24% per year against +21.27% for TCHP; over five years the annualized figures are +13.08% and +8.48% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +16.02% annualized vs +11.93%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
TCHP has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.8% compared with 15.4% 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 -24.5% for IVV and -42.3% for TCHP. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.91. 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 TCHP charges 0.57%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $57 annually, a gap of $54 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.00% for TCHP.
Holdings Overlap
53.3% of IVV's money is in holdings TCHP also owns. 95.2% of TCHP's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of TCHP is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
58 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 65 in TCHP, against full books of 508 and 65.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 3 positions for TCHP that do not appear in our book for IVV (0.7% of the fund), and 424 for IVV that do not appear in TCHP (45.3%).
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 TCHP | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.07% | 15.94% | 7.87% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.02% | 4.54% | 2.48% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.69% | 4.38% | 1.31% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 5.85% | 2.85% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.39% | 6.31% | 3.92% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.65% | 5.96% | 3.31% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.84% | 3.32% | 0.52% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 3.51% | 1.61% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.16% | 3.64% | 2.48% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.38% | 3.19% | 1.81% |
95.2% of TCHP 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 TCHP?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while TCHP charges 0.57%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $54 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or TCHP?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.04% vs +3.93% for TCHP, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), IVV annualized +16.02% vs +11.93% for TCHP. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or TCHP?
TCHP has been the more volatile fund at 19.8% annualized versus 15.4% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -24.5% vs TCHP -42.3%.
Should I hold both IVV and TCHP?
IVV and TCHP have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, 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 TCHP?
95.2% of TCHP's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 95.2% of TCHP's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 58 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 65 in TCHP.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or TCHP?
IVV yields 1.06% while TCHP yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TCHP better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 5Y and the full window, TCHP over 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.