IVV vs XMHQ
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | XMHQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.25% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | $5.7B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 0.57% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 82 | |
| YTD Return | +12.76% | +14.46% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.63% | +14.55% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.71% | +15.38% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.87% | +10.46% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 17.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -58.4% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Dec 1, 2006 |
IVV vs XMHQ Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IVV returned +20.63% while XMHQ returned +14.55%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.76% versus a gain of 14.46% for XMHQ.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.71% per year against +15.38% for XMHQ; over five years the annualized figures are +12.87% and +10.46% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, XMHQ has the edge at +8.70% annualized vs +6.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
XMHQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.6% compared with 15.1% 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 -56.5% for IVV and -58.4% for XMHQ. 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 0.90. 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 XMHQ 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 1.10% against 0.57% for XMHQ.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and XMHQ share 0 holdings out of 586 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 XMHQ?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while XMHQ charges 0.25%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $22 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or XMHQ?
Over the past year IVV returned +20.63% vs +14.55% for XMHQ, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), IVV annualized +6.99% vs +8.70% for XMHQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or XMHQ?
XMHQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.6% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs XMHQ -58.4%.
Should I hold both IVV and XMHQ?
IVV and XMHQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, 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 XMHQ?
IVV and XMHQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 586 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or XMHQ?
IVV yields 1.10% while XMHQ yields 0.57%, 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.