IVOV vs RFV
Vanguard S&P Mid-Cap 400 Value ETF vs Invesco S&P Midcap 400 Pure Value ETF
Which is better, IVOV or RFV?
Nearly the same fund. IVOV costs less.
IVOV has a lower expense ratio. RFV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. IVOV is less concentrated, with 10.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 30.6%.
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 | IVOV | RFV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.10%Best | 0.35% |
| AUM | $1.2B | $338M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.72% | 1.69% |
| Holdings | 300 | 197 |
| YTD Return | +6.38% | +13.44%Best |
| 1Y Return | +9.97% | +16.19%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.14% | +16.33%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.43% | +10.83%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2%Best | 22.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -46.0%Best | -54.2% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,310 | $16,722Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 10.5%Best | 30.6% |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Value | Mid Cap Value |
| Inception | Sep 7, 2010 | Mar 1, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 9, 2010 to Oct 14, 2026 (16.1 years).
IVOV vs RFV 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 16.1 years both funds cover.
IVOV vs RFV Performance
Vanguard S&P Mid-Cap 400 Value ETF (IVOV) is an ETF from Vanguard (US) and Invesco S&P Midcap 400 Pure Value ETF (RFV) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IVOV returned +9.97% while RFV returned +16.19%. Year to date, IVOV is up 6.38% versus a gain of 13.44% for RFV.
Over three years, IVOV compounded at +14.14% per year against +16.33% for RFV; over five years the annualized figures are +7.43% and +10.83% respectively. Across the full 16-year window we track, RFV has the edge at +11.26% annualized vs +11.22%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RFV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.1% compared with 18.2% for IVOV. 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 -46.0% for IVOV and -54.2% for RFV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.97. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVOV charges 0.10% per year while RFV charges 0.35%. On a $10,000 position that is $10 vs $35 annually, a gap of $25 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVOV currently yields 1.72% against 1.69% for RFV.
Holdings Overlap
41.2% of IVOV's money is in holdings RFV also owns. 99.0% of RFV's money is in holdings IVOV also owns.
Most of RFV is already inside IVOV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
94 positions in common, counted across the 297 positions we hold weights for in IVOV and 95 in RFV, against full books of 300 and 197.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 0 positions for RFV that do not appear in our book for IVOV (0.0% of the fund), and 202 for IVOV that do not appear in RFV (58.3%).
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 IVOV | Weight in RFV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| PBFPbf Energy Inc | 0.36% | 5.18% | 4.82% |
| AVTAvnet Inc | 0.43% | 4.78% | 4.35% |
| ARWArrow Electronics Inc. | 0.61% | 4.53% | 3.92% |
| DINOHF Sinclair Corp | 0.91% | 4.00% | 3.09% |
| SNXSynnex Corp | 1.10% | 2.89% | 1.79% |
| RGAReinsurance Group of America, Incorporated | 0.94% | 1.76% | 0.82% |
| LEALear Corp. | 0.36% | 2.05% | 1.69% |
| MOHMolina Healthcare Inc | 0.60% | 1.73% | 1.13% |
| OASChord Energy Corp | 0.48% | 1.73% | 1.25% |
| SNSharkninja | 0.79% | 1.41% | 0.62% |
99.0% of RFV is already inside IVOV.
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, IVOV or RFV?
IVOV has an expense ratio of 0.10% while RFV charges 0.35%. IVOV is the cheaper option, by $25 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVOV or RFV?
Over the past year IVOV returned +9.97% vs +16.19% for RFV, so RFV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (16 years), IVOV annualized +11.22% vs +11.26% for RFV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVOV or RFV?
RFV has been the more volatile fund at 22.1% annualized versus 18.2% for IVOV. Worst drawdown: IVOV -46.0% vs RFV -54.2%.
Should I hold both IVOV and RFV?
IVOV and RFV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, 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 IVOV and RFV?
99.0% of RFV's money is in holdings IVOV also owns. 99.0% of RFV's is in holdings IVOV also owns. They hold 94 positions in common, counted across the 297 positions we hold weights for in IVOV and 95 in RFV.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVOV or RFV?
IVOV yields 1.72% while RFV yields 1.69%, so IVOV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RFV better than IVOV?
IVOV has a lower expense ratio. RFV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. IVOV is less concentrated, with 10.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 30.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.