IVV vs ZSB
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. ZSB delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | ZSB | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.59% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | $2M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 0.90% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 15 | |
| YTD Return | +14.29% | +4.10% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.79% | +49.19% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.19% | +4.90% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.28% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 21.8% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -49.3% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | USCF Investments | |
| Category | Equity | Commodity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jan 10, 2023 |
IVV vs ZSB Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy ETF (ZSB) is a ETF from USCF Investments. Over the past year IVV returned +21.79% while ZSB returned +49.19%. Year to date, IVV is up 14.29% versus a gain of 4.10% for ZSB.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.19% per year against +4.90% for ZSB. Across the full 4-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.06% annualized vs -1.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ZSB has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.8% 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 -49.3% for ZSB. 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 0.09. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while ZSB charges 0.59%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $59 annually, a gap of $56 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 0.90% for ZSB.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and ZSB 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 ZSB?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while ZSB charges 0.59%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $56 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or ZSB?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.79% vs +49.19% for ZSB, so ZSB leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IVV annualized +7.06% vs -1.60% for ZSB. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or ZSB?
ZSB has been the more volatile fund at 21.8% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs ZSB -49.3%.
Should I hold both IVV and ZSB?
IVV and ZSB have a monthly-return correlation of 0.09, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and ZSB?
IVV and ZSB share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 506 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or ZSB?
IVV yields 1.10% while ZSB yields 0.90%, 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.