IVV vs SFLR
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Innovator Equity Managed Floor ETF
Which is better, IVV or SFLR?
Nearly the same fund. IVV costs less.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. IVV is less concentrated, with 38.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.8%.
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 | IVV | SFLR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.89% |
| AUM | $882.6B | $2.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.28% |
| Holdings | 508 | 576 |
| YTD Return | +14.84%Best | +7.58% |
| 1Y Return | +18.70%Best | +10.57% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.93%Best | +15.63% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.91% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.8% | 9.2%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -18.8% | -12.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.9 years | $21,856Best | $17,930 |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.1%Best | 38.8% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Innovator ETFs Trust |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Nov 8, 2022 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 9, 2022 to Oct 13, 2026 (3.9 years).
IVV vs SFLR 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 3.9 years both funds cover.
IVV vs SFLR Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Innovator Equity Managed Floor ETF (SFLR) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust. Over the past year IVV returned +18.70% while SFLR returned +10.57%. Year to date, IVV is up 14.84% versus a gain of 7.58% for SFLR.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.93% per year against +15.63% for SFLR. Across the full 4-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +22.20% annualized vs +16.15%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.8% compared with 9.2% for SFLR. 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 -18.8% for IVV and -12.1% for SFLR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.95. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while SFLR charges 0.89%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $89 annually, a gap of $86 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.28% for SFLR.
Holdings Overlap
68.3% of IVV's money is in holdings SFLR also owns. 91.5% of SFLR's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of SFLR is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
129 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 183 in SFLR, against full books of 508 and 576.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 49 positions for SFLR that do not appear in our book for IVV (5.4% of the fund), and 368 for IVV that do not appear in SFLR (31.0%).
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 IVV | Weight in SFLR | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.00% | 7.89% | 0.11% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.39% | 7.47% | 0.08% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.57% | 5.42% | 0.15% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.80% | 3.91% | 0.11% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 3.06% | 0.06% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.59% | 2.72% | 0.13% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.40% | 2.63% | 0.23% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.15% | 2.04% | 0.11% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.66% | 1.99% | 0.33% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.56% | 1.61% | 0.05% |
91.5% of SFLR is already inside IVV.
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, IVV or SFLR?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while SFLR charges 0.89%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $86 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or SFLR?
Over the past year IVV returned +18.70% vs +10.57% for SFLR, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IVV annualized +22.20% vs +16.15% for SFLR. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or SFLR?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 12.8% annualized versus 9.2% for SFLR. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs SFLR -12.1%.
Should I hold both IVV and SFLR?
IVV and SFLR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, 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 IVV and SFLR?
91.5% of SFLR's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 91.5% of SFLR's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 129 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 183 in SFLR.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or SFLR?
IVV yields 1.06% while SFLR yields 0.28%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SFLR better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. IVV is less concentrated, with 38.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.