IJS vs SLYV
iShares S&P SmallCap 600 Value ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF
Which is better, IJS or SLYV?
Each has led over a different period.
SLYV has a lower expense ratio. IJS led over 3Y and 5Y, SLYV over the full window. SLYV is less concentrated, with 8.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 8.9%.
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 | IJS | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% | 0.15%Best |
| AUM | $7.5B | $4.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.45% | 2.01% |
| Holdings | 1,026 | 463 |
| YTD Return | +12.54% | +12.58%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.84%Tie | +17.84%Tie |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.40%Best | +15.17% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +5.88%Best | +5.82% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.3%Best | 44.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -61.3%Best | -63.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,307Best | $13,269 |
| Top 10 Weight | 8.9% | 8.5%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | State Street Investment Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Value | Small Cap Value |
| Inception | Jul 24, 2000 | Sep 25, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 29, 2000 to Oct 14, 2026 (26 years).
IJS vs SLYV 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 26 years both funds cover.
IJS vs SLYV Performance
iShares S&P SmallCap 600 Value ETF (IJS) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF (SLYV) is an ETF from State Street Investment Management. Over the past year IJS returned +17.84% while SLYV returned +17.84%. Year to date, IJS is up 12.54% versus a gain of 12.58% for SLYV.
Over three years, IJS compounded at +15.40% per year against +15.17% for SLYV; over five years the annualized figures are +5.88% and +5.82% respectively. Across the full 26-year window we track, SLYV has the edge at +13.14% annualized vs +8.18%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SLYV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 44.5% compared with 20.3% for IJS. 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 -61.3% for IJS and -63.1% for SLYV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.43. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IJS charges 0.18% per year while SLYV charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $15 annually, a gap of $3 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IJS currently yields 1.45% against 2.01% for SLYV.
Holdings Overlap
94.1% of IJS's money is in holdings SLYV also owns. 95.6% of SLYV's money is in holdings IJS also owns.
Most of SLYV is already inside IJS. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
443 positions in common, counted across the 460 positions we hold weights for in IJS and 463 in SLYV, against full books of 1,026 and 463.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 15 positions for SLYV that do not appear in our book for IJS (3.2% of the fund), and 14 for IJS that do not appear in SLYV (3.8%).
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 IJS | Weight in SLYV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MTCHMatch Group Inc | 1.01% | 1.02% | 0.01% |
| PAYCPaycom Software | 0.96% | 0.94% | 0.02% |
| SMSm Energy Co | 0.92% | 0.92% | 0.00% |
| KMXCarmax Inc. | 0.87% | 0.86% | 0.01% |
| JXNJackson Financial Inc USD | 0.80% | 0.90% | 0.10% |
| EMNEastman Chemical Co. | 0.81% | 0.82% | 0.01% |
| VSCOVICTORIA'S SECRET & CO | 0.77% | 0.80% | 0.03% |
| LNCLincoln National Corp. | 0.76% | 0.76% | 0.00% |
| MATXMatson Inc | 0.74% | 0.76% | 0.02% |
| MHKMohawk Industries Inc. | 0.70% | 0.71% | 0.01% |
95.6% of SLYV is already inside IJS.
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, IJS or SLYV?
IJS has an expense ratio of 0.18% while SLYV charges 0.15%. SLYV is the cheaper option, by $3 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IJS or SLYV?
Over the past year IJS returned +17.84% vs +17.84% for SLYV, so SLYV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (26 years), IJS annualized +8.18% vs +13.14% for SLYV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IJS or SLYV?
SLYV has been the more volatile fund at 44.5% annualized versus 20.3% for IJS. Worst drawdown: IJS -61.3% vs SLYV -63.1%.
Should I hold both IJS and SLYV?
IJS and SLYV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.43, 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 IJS and SLYV?
95.6% of SLYV's money is in holdings IJS also owns. 95.6% of SLYV's is in holdings IJS also owns. They hold 443 positions in common, counted across the 460 positions we hold weights for in IJS and 463 in SLYV.
Which pays a higher dividend, IJS or SLYV?
IJS yields 1.45% while SLYV yields 2.01%, so SLYV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SLYV better than IJS?
SLYV has a lower expense ratio. IJS led over 3Y and 5Y, SLYV over the full window. SLYV is less concentrated, with 8.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 8.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.