IVV vs XCHG

IVV vs XCHG

Which is better, IVV or XCHG?

IVV costs less.

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.3%.

Lower Fees: IVVLess Concentrated: IVV

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

MetricIVVXCHG
Expense Ratio0.03%Best0.50%
AUM$876.4B$710M
Dividend Yield1.06%0.36%
Holdings508591
YTD Return+12.51%Best+9.82%
1Y Return+17.57%-
3Y Return (annualized)+21.27%-
5Y Return (annualized)+12.95%-
Top 10 Weight37.9%Best41.3%
Fund FamilyiShares by BlackRock (US)AllianceBernstein L.P.
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Blend
InceptionMay 15, 2000Dec 12, 2025

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

IVV vs XCHG 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 XCHG Performance

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and AB US Equity ETF (XCHG) is an ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P.. Year to date, IVV is up 12.51% versus a gain of 9.82% for XCHG.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

IVV charges 0.03% per year while XCHG charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $50 annually, a gap of $47 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.36% for XCHG.

Holdings Overlap

IVV already in XCHG86.7%
XCHG already in IVV85.4%

86.7% of IVV's money is in holdings XCHG also owns. 85.4% of XCHG's money is in holdings IVV also owns.

Most of IVV is already inside XCHG. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.

366 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 586 in XCHG, against full books of 508 and 591.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 94 positions for XCHG that do not appear in our book for IVV (9.5% of the fund), and 132 for IVV that do not appear in XCHG (12.9%).

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 XCHGDifference
NVDANvidia Corp.7.98%8.06%0.08%
AAPLApple, Inc6.86%5.11%1.75%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 375.44%6.20%0.76%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc4.01%4.97%0.96%
AVGOBroadcom Inc2.98%3.49%0.51%
GOOGAlphabet Inc2.56%3.91%1.35%
GOOGLAlphabet A Usd 0.0013.19%2.30%0.89%
METAMeta Platforms, Inc.1.94%2.85%0.91%
VVisa Inc0.92%2.78%1.86%
LLYEli Lilly & Co.1.39%0.91%0.48%

86.7% of IVV is already inside XCHG.

You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.

IVVXCHG

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IVV or XCHG?

IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while XCHG charges 0.50%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $47 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between IVV and XCHG?

86.7% of IVV's money is in holdings XCHG also owns. 85.4% of XCHG's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 366 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 586 in XCHG.

Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or XCHG?

IVV yields 1.06% while XCHG yields 0.36%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is XCHG better than IVV?

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.