COTG vs IVV
Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, COTG or IVV?
Trading-Leveraged Equity against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window.
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 | COTG | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.77% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $13M | $896.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 10 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +18.72%Best | +13.59% |
| 1Y Return | -5.95% | +17.54%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +22.46% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.28% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 34.9% | 12.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -36.5% | -8.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.1 years | $9,090 | $11,839Best |
| Fund Family | Leverage Shares | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Trading-Leveraged Equity | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 18, 2025 | May 15, 2000 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.1 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 18, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.1 years).
COTG vs IVV 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 1.1 years both funds cover.
COTG vs IVV Performance
Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF (COTG) is an ETF from Leverage Shares and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year COTG returned -5.95% while IVV returned +17.54%. Year to date, COTG is up 18.72% versus a gain of 13.59% for IVV.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
COTG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 34.9% compared with 12.7% 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 -36.5% for COTG and -8.9% for IVV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.00. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
COTG charges 0.77% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $77 vs $3 annually, a gap of $74 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, COTG currently yields 0.00% against 1.10% for IVV.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of COTG and IVV you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, COTG or IVV?
COTG has an expense ratio of 0.77% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $74 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, COTG or IVV?
Over the past year COTG returned -5.95% vs +17.54% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), COTG annualized -8.31% vs +16.59% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, COTG or IVV?
COTG has been the more volatile fund at 34.9% annualized versus 12.7% for IVV. Worst drawdown: COTG -36.5% vs IVV -8.9%.
Should I hold both COTG and IVV?
COTG and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.00, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, COTG or IVV?
COTG yields 0.00% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than COTG?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.