IVV vs TMID

IVV vs TMID

Which is better, IVV or TMID?

Large Cap Blend against Mid Cap Blend.

IVV has a lower expense ratio. TMID is less concentrated, with 9.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.9%.

Lower Fees: IVVLess Concentrated: TMID

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

MetricIVVTMID
Expense Ratio0.03%Best0.47%
AUM$896.5B$12M
Dividend Yield1.10%0.00%
Holdings508391
YTD Return+13.59%Best+0.46%
1Y Return+17.54%-
3Y Return (annualized)+22.46%-
5Y Return (annualized)+13.28%-
Top 10 Weight38.9%9.6%Best
Fund FamilyiShares by BlackRock (US)T.Rowe Price
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendMid Cap Blend
InceptionMay 15, 2000Sep 16, 2026

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

IVV vs TMID 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

IVV vs TMID Performance

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and T. Rowe Price Mid-Cap Equity Research ETF (TMID) is an ETF from T.Rowe Price. Year to date, IVV is up 13.59% versus a gain of 0.46% for TMID.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

IVV charges 0.03% per year while TMID charges 0.47%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $47 annually, a gap of $44 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 0.00% for TMID.

Holdings Overlap

IVV already in TMID7.6%
TMID already in IVV43.6%

7.6% of IVV's money is in holdings TMID also owns. 43.6% of TMID's money is in holdings IVV also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

140 positions in common, counted across the 506 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 391 in TMID, against full books of 508 and 391.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 227 positions for TMID that do not appear in our book for IVV (50.6% of the fund), and 360 for IVV that do not appear in TMID (91.8%).

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

StockWeight in IVVWeight in TMIDDifference
PSXPhillips 660.16%1.14%0.98%
KEYSKeysight Technologies Inc.0.10%0.87%0.77%
VLTOVeralto Corp0.03%0.93%0.90%
PSTGPure Storage Inc0.07%0.80%0.73%
MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp0.18%0.64%0.46%
PTCPtc, Inc.(A)0.02%0.75%0.73%
VEEVVeeva Systems Inc0.06%0.69%0.63%
HUMHumana Inc.0.07%0.64%0.57%
LITELumentum Holdings Inc0.14%0.56%0.42%
STLDSteel Dynamics Inc0.05%0.64%0.59%

43.6% of TMID 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.

IVVTMID

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IVV or TMID?

IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while TMID charges 0.47%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $44 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between IVV and TMID?

43.6% of TMID's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 43.6% of TMID's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 140 positions in common, counted across the 506 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 391 in TMID.

Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or TMID?

IVV yields 1.10% while TMID yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is TMID better than IVV?

IVV has a lower expense ratio. TMID is less concentrated, with 9.6% 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.