GINN vs IVV
Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, GINN or IVV?
All Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. GINN is less concentrated, with 16.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.9%.
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 | GINN | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $179M | $896.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.13% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 474 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +8.89% | +13.59%Best |
| 1Y Return | +9.33% | +17.54%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.51% | +22.46%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.23% | +13.28%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 14.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -41.3% | -24.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,528 | $18,654Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 16.8%Best | 38.9% |
| Fund Family | Goldman Sachs Asset Management | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | All Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Nov 9, 2020 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 9, 2020 to Oct 14, 2026 (5.9 years).
GINN 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 5.9 years both funds cover.
GINN vs IVV Performance
Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF (GINN) is an ETF from Goldman Sachs Asset Management and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year GINN returned +9.33% while IVV returned +17.54%. Year to date, GINN is up 8.89% versus a gain of 13.59% for IVV.
Over three years, GINN compounded at +20.51% per year against +22.46% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +6.23% and +13.28% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +15.53% annualized vs +8.77%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
GINN has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.2% compared with 14.9% 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 -41.3% for GINN and -24.5% 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 0.92. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GINN charges 0.50% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $3 annually, a gap of $47 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GINN currently yields 1.13% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
53.8% of GINN's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 59.5% of IVV's money is in holdings GINN also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
131 positions in common, counted across the 473 positions we hold weights for in GINN and 506 in IVV, against full books of 474 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 370 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for GINN (40.0% of the fund), and 191 for GINN that do not appear in IVV (21.5%).
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 GINN | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 2.09% | 8.44% | 6.35% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 2.14% | 7.29% | 5.15% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 2.08% | 5.76% | 3.68% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 1.83% | 3.68% | 1.85% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 1.94% | 3.00% | 1.06% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.96% | 2.42% | 0.46% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.67% | 2.47% | 1.80% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.18% | 1.51% | 0.33% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 0.57% | 1.87% | 1.30% |
| INTCIntel Corporation | 1.53% | 0.90% | 0.63% |
59.5% of IVV is already inside GINN.
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, GINN or IVV?
GINN has an expense ratio of 0.50% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $47 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, GINN or IVV?
Over the past year GINN returned +9.33% vs +17.54% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), GINN annualized +8.77% vs +15.53% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GINN or IVV?
GINN has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 14.9% for IVV. Worst drawdown: GINN -41.3% vs IVV -24.5%.
Should I hold both GINN and IVV?
GINN and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, 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 GINN and IVV?
59.5% of IVV's money is in holdings GINN also owns. 59.5% of IVV's is in holdings GINN also owns. They hold 131 positions in common, counted across the 473 positions we hold weights for in GINN and 506 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, GINN or IVV?
GINN yields 1.13% while IVV yields 1.10%, so GINN currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than GINN?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. GINN is less concentrated, with 16.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.