IVV vs UMAR
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Innovator US Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - March
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | UMAR | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.79% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $194M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 0.00% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 6 | |
| YTD Return | +13.43% | +7.43% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.61% | +12.40% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.47% | +12.50% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.26% | +7.94% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 6.0% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -11.1% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Innovator ETFs Trust | |
| Category | Equity | Alternative | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Feb 28, 2020 |
IVV vs UMAR Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Innovator US Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - March (UMAR) is a ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust. Over the past year IVV returned +22.61% while UMAR returned +12.40%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.43% versus a gain of 7.43% for UMAR.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.47% per year against +12.50% for UMAR; over five years the annualized figures are +13.26% and +7.94% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, UMAR has the edge at +7.84% annualized vs +7.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 6.0% for UMAR. 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 -56.5% for IVV and -11.1% for UMAR. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
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 UMAR charges 0.79%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $79 annually, a gap of $76 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 0.00% for UMAR.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and UMAR share 0 holdings out of 506 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or UMAR?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while UMAR charges 0.79%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $76 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or UMAR?
Over the past year IVV returned +22.61% vs +12.40% for UMAR, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), IVV annualized +7.03% vs +7.84% for UMAR. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or UMAR?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 6.0% for UMAR. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs UMAR -11.1%.
Should I hold both IVV and UMAR?
IVV and UMAR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and UMAR?
IVV and UMAR share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 506 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or UMAR?
IVV yields 1.09% while UMAR yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.