IVV vs TOK
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs iShares MSCI Kokusai ETF
Which is better, IVV or TOK?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. TOK is less concentrated, with 27.5% 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 | TOK |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.25% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $246M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 1.27% |
| Holdings | 508 | 1,136 |
| YTD Return | +12.24%Best | +11.58% |
| 1Y Return | +18.61%Best | +17.95% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.98%Best | +20.27% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.76%Best | +11.45% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.7%Best | 16.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -54.7%Best | -56.6% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,230Best | $17,195 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9% | 27.5%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Dec 10, 2007 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 12, 2007 to Sep 9, 2026 (18.7 years).
IVV vs TOK 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 18.7 years both funds cover.
IVV vs TOK Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares MSCI Kokusai ETF (TOK) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IVV returned +18.61% while TOK returned +17.95%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.24% versus a gain of 11.58% for TOK.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.98% per year against +20.27% for TOK; over five years the annualized figures are +12.76% and +11.45% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +9.56% annualized vs +6.84%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
TOK has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.5% 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 -54.7% for IVV and -56.6% for TOK. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.97. 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 TOK charges 0.25%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $25 annually, a gap of $22 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 1.27% for TOK.
Holdings Overlap
93.5% of IVV's money is in holdings TOK also owns. 71.2% of TOK's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of IVV is already inside TOK. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
387 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 892 in TOK, against full books of 508 and 1,136.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 70 positions for TOK that do not appear in our book for IVV (3.9% of the fund), and 112 for IVV that do not appear in TOK (6.1%).
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 TOK | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.98% | 5.32% | 2.66% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.86% | 5.41% | 1.45% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.44% | 3.22% | 2.22% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.01% | 2.79% | 1.22% |
| GOOGLAlphabet A Usd 0.001 | 3.19% | 2.51% | 0.68% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.98% | 1.98% | 1.00% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.56% | 1.99% | 0.57% |
| METAMeta Platforms, Inc. | 1.94% | 1.55% | 0.39% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.51% | 1.31% | 0.20% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.36% | 1.39% | 0.03% |
93.5% of IVV is already inside TOK.
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 TOK?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while TOK charges 0.25%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $22 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or TOK?
Over the past year IVV returned +18.61% vs +17.95% for TOK, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), IVV annualized +9.56% vs +6.84% for TOK. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or TOK?
TOK has been the more volatile fund at 16.5% annualized versus 15.7% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -54.7% vs TOK -56.6%.
Should I hold both IVV and TOK?
IVV and TOK have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, 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 TOK?
93.5% of IVV's money is in holdings TOK also owns. 71.2% of TOK's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 387 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 892 in TOK.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or TOK?
IVV yields 1.06% while TOK yields 1.27%, so TOK currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TOK better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. TOK is less concentrated, with 27.5% 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.