IVV vs XYLG
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF
Which is better, IVV or XYLG?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, XYLG over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.7%.
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 | XYLG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.35% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $62M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 12.87% |
| Holdings | 508 | 506 |
| YTD Return | +12.51%Best | +11.36% |
| 1Y Return | +17.57% | +18.06%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.27%Best | +16.81% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.95%Best | +10.34% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.4% | 12.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -24.5% | -21.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,384Best | $16,356 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9%Best | 38.7% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Global X by mirae Asset |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Sep 18, 2020 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 21, 2020 to Sep 11, 2026 (6 years).
IVV vs XYLG 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 6 years both funds cover.
IVV vs XYLG Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF (XYLG) is an ETF from Global X by mirae Asset. Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while XYLG returned +18.06%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.51% versus a gain of 11.36% for XYLG.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.27% per year against +16.81% for XYLG; over five years the annualized figures are +12.95% and +10.34% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +16.70% annualized vs +13.11%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.4% compared with 12.0% for XYLG. 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 -24.5% for IVV and -21.3% for XYLG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.98. 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 XYLG charges 0.35%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $35 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 12.87% for XYLG.
Holdings Overlap
98.6% of IVV's money is in holdings XYLG also owns. 100.0% of XYLG's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of XYLG is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
483 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 489 in XYLG, against full books of 508 and 506.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 3 positions for XYLG that do not appear in our book for IVV (0.4% of the fund), and 16 for IVV that do not appear in XYLG (0.9%).
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
| Stock | Weight in IVV | Weight in XYLG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.98% | 7.86% | 0.12% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.86% | 6.96% | 0.10% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.44% | 5.60% | 0.16% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.01% | 4.16% | 0.15% |
| GOOGLAlphabet A Usd 0.001 | 3.19% | 3.39% | 0.20% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.98% | 3.03% | 0.05% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.56% | 2.71% | 0.15% |
| METAMeta Platforms, Inc. | 1.94% | 1.97% | 0.03% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.51% | 1.54% | 0.03% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase & Co. | 1.45% | 1.46% | 0.01% |
100.0% of XYLG 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.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or XYLG?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while XYLG charges 0.35%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $32 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or XYLG?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs +18.06% for XYLG, so XYLG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), IVV annualized +16.70% vs +13.11% for XYLG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or XYLG?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.4% annualized versus 12.0% for XYLG. Worst drawdown: IVV -24.5% vs XYLG -21.3%.
Should I hold both IVV and XYLG?
IVV and XYLG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, 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 XYLG?
100.0% of XYLG's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 100.0% of XYLG's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 483 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 489 in XYLG.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or XYLG?
IVV yields 1.06% while XYLG yields 12.87%, so XYLG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is XYLG better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, XYLG over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.