IGA vs WLDR
Voya Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund vs Simplify Affinity World Leaders Equity ETF
Which is better, IGA or WLDR?
WLDR has been ahead.
WLDR has a lower expense ratio. WLDR led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IGA is less concentrated, with 18.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.2%.
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 | IGA | WLDR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.97% | 0.67%Best |
| AUM | $168M | $149M |
| Dividend Yield | 9.48% | 1.21% |
| Holdings | 251 | 226 |
| YTD Return | +11.75% | +27.32%Best |
| 1Y Return | +12.51% | +36.94%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.10% | +31.32%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.70% | +17.94%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.7%Best | 18.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -46.6%Best | -47.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,624 | $22,819Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 18.4%Best | 37.2% |
| Fund Family | Voya Investment Management | Simplify Exchange Traded Funds |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Oct 26, 2005 | Jan 16, 2018 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 17, 2018 to Oct 15, 2026 (8.7 years).
IGA vs WLDR 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 8.7 years both funds cover.
IGA vs WLDR Performance
Voya Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund (IGA) is an ETF from Voya Investment Management and Simplify Affinity World Leaders Equity ETF (WLDR) is an ETF from Simplify Exchange Traded Funds. Over the past year IGA returned +12.51% while WLDR returned +36.94%. Year to date, IGA is up 11.75% versus a gain of 27.32% for WLDR.
Over three years, IGA compounded at +19.10% per year against +31.32% for WLDR; over five years the annualized figures are +10.70% and +17.94% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, WLDR has the edge at +10.95% annualized vs +4.81%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
WLDR has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.5% compared with 14.7% for IGA. 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 -46.6% for IGA and -47.1% for WLDR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.80. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IGA charges 0.97% per year while WLDR charges 0.67%. On a $10,000 position that is $97 vs $67 annually, a gap of $30 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IGA currently yields 9.48% against 1.21% for WLDR.
Holdings Overlap
16.7% of IGA's money is in holdings WLDR also owns. 29.4% of WLDR's money is in holdings IGA also owns.
WLDR and IGA share little of their money.
33 positions in common, counted across the 237 positions we hold weights for in IGA and 112 in WLDR, against full books of 251 and 226.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 41 positions for WLDR that do not appear in our book for IGA (47.9% of the fund), and 122 for IGA that do not appear in WLDR (57.8%).
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 IGA | Weight in WLDR | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.52% | 7.28% | 5.76% |
| VZVerizon Communic | 0.72% | 2.33% | 1.61% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 1.48% | 1.45% | 0.03% |
| SSNCSs&C Technologies Holdings Inc. | 0.60% | 1.58% | 0.98% |
| CCitigroup Inc. | 0.74% | 1.18% | 0.44% |
| PFEPfizer Inc | 0.91% | 0.97% | 0.06% |
| BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 0.81% | 0.92% | 0.11% |
| VLOValero Energy | 0.32% | 1.28% | 0.96% |
| MOAltria Group Inc | 0.78% | 0.64% | 0.14% |
| REP:MARepsol Sa Sp/Adr Ordinary Shares | 0.71% | 0.62% | 0.09% |
29.4% of WLDR is already inside IGA.
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, IGA or WLDR?
IGA has an expense ratio of 0.97% while WLDR charges 0.67%. WLDR is the cheaper option, by $30 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IGA or WLDR?
Over the past year IGA returned +12.51% vs +36.94% for WLDR, so WLDR leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), IGA annualized +4.81% vs +10.95% for WLDR. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IGA or WLDR?
WLDR has been the more volatile fund at 18.5% annualized versus 14.7% for IGA. Worst drawdown: IGA -46.6% vs WLDR -47.1%.
Should I hold both IGA and WLDR?
IGA and WLDR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.80, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IGA and WLDR?
29.4% of WLDR's money is in holdings IGA also owns. 29.4% of WLDR's is in holdings IGA also owns. They hold 33 positions in common, counted across the 237 positions we hold weights for in IGA and 112 in WLDR.
Which pays a higher dividend, IGA or WLDR?
IGA yields 9.48% while WLDR yields 1.21%, so IGA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is WLDR better than IGA?
WLDR has a lower expense ratio. WLDR led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IGA is less concentrated, with 18.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.