IVV vs TMFG
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Motley Fool Global Opportunities ETF
Which is better, IVV or TMFG?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.8%.
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 | TMFG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.85% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $350M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.26% |
| Holdings | 508 | 46 |
| YTD Return | +14.14%Best | +2.10% |
| 1Y Return | +17.30%Best | +1.61% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +23.04%Best | +11.82% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.63% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.8%Best | 17.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -24.5%Best | -33.7% |
| $10,000 over 4.8 years | $17,827Best | $11,714 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8%Best | 46.8% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Motley Fool Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jun 17, 2014 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 13, 2021 to Sep 22, 2026 (4.8 years).
IVV vs TMFG 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 4.8 years both funds cover.
IVV vs TMFG Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Motley Fool Global Opportunities ETF (TMFG) is an ETF from Motley Fool Asset Management. Over the past year IVV returned +17.30% while TMFG returned +1.61%. Year to date, IVV is up 14.14% versus a gain of 2.10% for TMFG.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +23.04% per year against +11.82% for TMFG.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
TMFG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.1% compared with 15.8% 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 -33.7% for TMFG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.90. 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 TMFG charges 0.85%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $85 annually, a gap of $82 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.26% for TMFG.
Holdings Overlap
9.3% of IVV's money is in holdings TMFG also owns. 44.9% of TMFG's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
15 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 40 in TMFG, against full books of 508 and 46.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 7 positions for TMFG that do not appear in our book for IVV (14.2% of the fund), and 467 for IVV that do not appear in TMFG (89.3%).
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 TMFG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.84% | 6.43% | 2.59% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.39% | 7.29% | 4.90% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 0.72% | 4.45% | 3.73% |
| COSTCostco Wholesale Corp. | 0.63% | 3.35% | 2.72% |
| EQIXEquinix Inc. Real Estate Investment Trust | 0.16% | 3.16% | 3.00% |
| AXONAxon Enterprise Inc | 0.07% | 2.81% | 2.74% |
| DXCMDexcom Inc. | 0.05% | 2.81% | 2.76% |
| FASTFastenal Co. | 0.09% | 2.72% | 2.63% |
| CRMSalesforce Inc Crm Us Equity | 0.32% | 2.28% | 1.96% |
| AONAon Public Limited Company Cl. A | 0.10% | 2.38% | 2.28% |
44.9% of TMFG 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 TMFG?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while TMFG charges 0.85%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $82 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or TMFG?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.30% vs +1.61% for TMFG, 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 TMFG?
TMFG has been the more volatile fund at 17.1% annualized versus 15.8% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -24.5% vs TMFG -33.7%.
Should I hold both IVV and TMFG?
IVV and TMFG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, 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 TMFG?
44.9% of TMFG's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 44.9% of TMFG's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 15 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 40 in TMFG.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or TMFG?
IVV yields 1.06% while TMFG yields 0.26%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TMFG better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.