IVV vs TSXU

IVV vs TSXU

Which is better, IVV or TSXU?

Large Cap Blend against Trading-Leveraged Equity.

IVV has a lower expense ratio. TSXU led over 1Y.

Lower Fees: IVVHigher Returns (1Y): TSXU

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

MetricIVVTSXU
Expense Ratio0.03%Best0.97%
AUM$876.4B$16M
Dividend Yield1.06%1.85%
Holdings50814
YTD Return+12.01%+67.94%Best
1Y Return+16.48%+105.65%Best
3Y Return (annualized)+21.21%-
5Y Return (annualized)+12.95%-
Top 10 Weight37.8%-
Fund FamilyiShares by BlackRock (US)Direxion Shares ETF Trust
CategoryEquityAlternative
StyleLarge Cap BlendTrading-Leveraged Equity
InceptionMay 15, 2000Oct 1, 2025

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

IVV vs TSXU 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

IVV vs TSXU Performance

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Direxion Daily Semiconductors Top 5 Bull 2X ETF (TSXU) is an ETF from Direxion Shares ETF Trust. Over the past year IVV returned +16.48% while TSXU returned +105.65%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.01% versus a gain of 67.94% for TSXU.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

IVV charges 0.03% per year while TSXU charges 0.97%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $97 annually, a gap of $94 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 1.85% for TSXU.

Holdings Overlap

IVV already in TSXU13.5%
TSXU already in IVV40.5%

13.5% of IVV's money is in holdings TSXU also owns. 40.5% of TSXU's money is in holdings IVV also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

4 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 8 in TSXU, against full books of 508 and 14.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 3 positions for TSXU that do not appear in our book for IVV (51.0% of the fund), and 478 for IVV that do not appear in TSXU (85.1%).

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

StockWeight in IVVWeight in TSXUDifference
NVDANvidia Corp8.07%11.51%3.44%
AVGOBroadcom Inc2.65%9.66%7.01%
MUMicron Technology, Inc.1.63%10.09%8.46%
AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc1.16%9.22%8.06%

40.5% of TSXU 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.

IVVTSXU

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IVV or TSXU?

IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while TSXU charges 0.97%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $94 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, IVV or TSXU?

Over the past year IVV returned +16.48% vs +105.65% for TSXU, so TSXU leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

What is the holdings overlap between IVV and TSXU?

40.5% of TSXU's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 40.5% of TSXU's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 4 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 8 in TSXU.

Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or TSXU?

IVV yields 1.06% while TSXU yields 1.85%, so TSXU currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is TSXU better than IVV?

IVV has a lower expense ratio. TSXU led over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.