IVV vs XMHQ
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF
Which is better, IVV or XMHQ?
Large Cap Blend against Mid Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. XMHQ is less concentrated, with 30.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.9%.
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 | IVV | XMHQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.25% |
| AUM | $896.5B | $5.3B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 0.55% |
| Holdings | 508 | 167 |
| YTD Return | +13.59%Best | +9.97% |
| 1Y Return | +17.54%Best | +9.22% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.46%Best | +14.55% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.28%Best | +9.59% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.4%Best | 17.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5%Best | -58.4% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,654Best | $15,807 |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.9% | 30.6%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Mid Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Dec 1, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 1, 2006 to Oct 14, 2026 (19.9 years).
IVV vs XMHQ 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 19.9 years both funds cover.
IVV vs XMHQ Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IVV returned +17.54% while XMHQ returned +9.22%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.59% versus a gain of 9.97% for XMHQ.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.46% per year against +14.55% for XMHQ; over five years the annualized figures are +13.28% and +9.59% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +9.40% annualized vs +8.42%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
XMHQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.6% compared with 15.4% for IVV. 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 -56.5% for IVV and -58.4% for XMHQ. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.90. 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 XMHQ charges 0.25%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $25 annually, a gap of $22 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 0.55% for XMHQ.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 506 holdings in IVV and 79 in XMHQ, totalling 99.9% and 100.0% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 506 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 79 in XMHQ, against full books of 508 and 167.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 77 positions for XMHQ that do not appear in our book for IVV (92.0% of the fund), and 500 for IVV that do not appear in XMHQ (99.4%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IVV and XMHQ you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or XMHQ?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while XMHQ charges 0.25%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $22 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or XMHQ?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.54% vs +9.22% for XMHQ, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), IVV annualized +9.40% vs +8.42% for XMHQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or XMHQ?
XMHQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.6% annualized versus 15.4% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs XMHQ -58.4%.
Should I hold both IVV and XMHQ?
IVV and XMHQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, 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.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or XMHQ?
IVV yields 1.10% while XMHQ yields 0.55%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is XMHQ better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. XMHQ is less concentrated, with 30.6% 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.