IVV vs XT
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs iShares Future Exponential Technologies ETF
Which is better, IVV or XT?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, XT over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. XT is less concentrated, with 35.4% 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 | XT |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.46% |
| AUM | $896.5B | $4.0B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 6.87% |
| Holdings | 508 | 221 |
| YTD Return | +13.59% | +18.69%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.54% | +23.99%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.46%Best | +19.98% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.28%Best | +7.63% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.0%Best | 17.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9%Best | -34.4% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,654Best | $14,443 |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.9% | 35.4%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Mar 19, 2015 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 24, 2015 to Oct 14, 2026 (11.6 years).
IVV vs XT 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 11.6 years both funds cover.
IVV vs XT Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares Future Exponential Technologies ETF (XT) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IVV returned +17.54% while XT returned +23.99%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.59% versus a gain of 18.69% for XT.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.46% per year against +19.98% for XT; over five years the annualized figures are +13.28% and +7.63% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +12.65% annualized vs +11.67%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
XT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.3% compared with 15.0% 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 -33.9% for IVV and -34.4% for XT. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.92. 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 XT charges 0.46%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $46 annually, a gap of $43 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 6.87% for XT.
Holdings Overlap
44.3% of IVV's money is in holdings XT also owns. 71.1% of XT's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of XT is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
71 positions in common, counted across the 506 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 195 in XT, against full books of 508 and 221.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 27 positions for XT that do not appear in our book for IVV (4.5% of the fund), and 429 for IVV that do not appear in XT (55.1%).
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 XT | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.44% | 3.94% | 4.50% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.76% | 4.04% | 1.72% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.68% | 2.61% | 1.07% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.51% | 3.94% | 2.43% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.39% | 3.94% | 2.55% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.00% | 2.11% | 0.89% |
| TXNTexas Instrument Inc | 0.39% | 4.22% | 3.83% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.47% | 1.76% | 0.71% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 0.49% | 3.69% | 3.20% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.42% | 1.58% | 0.84% |
71.1% of XT 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 XT?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while XT charges 0.46%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $43 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or XT?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.54% vs +23.99% for XT, so XT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), IVV annualized +12.65% vs +11.67% for XT. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or XT?
XT has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 15.0% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs XT -34.4%.
Should I hold both IVV and XT?
IVV and XT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, 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 XT?
71.1% of XT's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 71.1% of XT's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 71 positions in common, counted across the 506 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 195 in XT.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or XT?
IVV yields 1.10% while XT yields 6.87%, so XT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is XT better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, XT over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. XT is less concentrated, with 35.4% 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.