ITOT vs IVV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
ITOT and IVV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. ITOT is iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF, while IVV is iShares Core S&P 500 ETF. ITOT is broader by holdings count, with 2,438 positions versus 507 for IVV. IVV is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IVV ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 56.
What is the main difference between ITOT and IVV?
ITOT holds 2,438 positions to IVV's 507, and 89% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | ITOT | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 2,438 | 507 |
| Top-10 concentration | 33.9% | 38% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.01% | 1.09% |
| Average volume | 1,619,536 | 7,331,107 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.8% | +16.3% |
| YTD return | +12.6% | +12.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.4% | +12.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 12.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -9.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -25.4% | -24.5% |
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.90 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.33 | 1.38 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 62/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 51/100 | 64/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 87/100 | 88/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
IVV leads
IVV leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support IVV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IVV over ITOT, 62 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. IVV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. IVV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IVV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. IVV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
ITOT vs IVV: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | ITOT | IVV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 2,438 | 507 | ITOT |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 33.9% | 38% | ITOT |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.01% | 1.09% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -25.4% | -24.5% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13% | 12.8% | Similar |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare ITOT and IVV against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum51 vs 64IVV +13
- Quality66 vs 77IVV +11
- Value35 vs 33Even
- Risk Resilience87 vs 88Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor IVV. IVV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +17
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
IVV's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ITOT and IVV both carry a full feed there.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | ITOT | IVV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 2,438 | 507 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,619,536 | 7,331,107 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 12.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -9.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.90 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.00 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
ITOT and IVV share 88.86% of their weighted exposure across 504 common holdings.
1,928 holdings are unique to ITOT, and every IVV holding is also in ITOT. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
IVV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 37.98% of the fund, against 33.85% for ITOT (507 holdings vs 2,438). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | ITOT | IVV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 7.33% | 8.22% | 7.33% |
| AAPLAPPLE | 6.27% | 7.03% | 6.27% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 4.94% | 5.54% | 4.94% |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 3.34% | 3.75% | 3.34% |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 2.62% | 2.94% | 2.62% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.33% | 2.62% | 2.33% |
| GOOGALPHABET CLASS C | 2.1% | 2.36% | 2.1% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS CLASS A | 1.94% | 2.18% | 1.94% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What ITOT adds that IVV doesn’t
| Holding | ITOT | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| SNOWSNOWFLAKE | 0.15% | Not held |
| NETCLOUDFLARE CLASS A | 0.14% | Not held |
| SPCXSPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES COR | 0.12% | Not held |
| BEBLOOM ENERGY CLASS A | 0.1% | Not held |
| LNGCHENIERE ENERGY | 0.08% | Not held |
| NTRANATERA | 0.06% | Not held |
What IVV adds that ITOT doesn’t
IVV has no position of 0.01% or more that ITOT lacks or holds at under half the weight.
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
ITOT vs IVV: five-year payout growth
IVV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.35% a year against ITOT's 6.17%. ITOT never reduced its annual distribution in the window; IVV did in 1 year. ITOT: The 2020 payout was 10.6% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | ITOT | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.17% | 6.35% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.219 | $5.908 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.644 | $8.040 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #84 of 138 | #80 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IVV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IVV | 56 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 35 vs 33 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.3% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day 5.4% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 87 vs 88 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ITOT and IVV and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on IVV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20IVV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IVV +6
- 56 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- IVV +7
- 55 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- IVV +7
- 55 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- IVV +4
- 64 vs 68
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 29 when IVV moved ahead of ITOT.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 3 neutral, conflicted
Only ITOT
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IVV
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 52-Week High Proximity, MACD Bearish Crossover.
IVV leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.59%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.56%, AIQ +4 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1ITOT closes the Momentum gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to IVV's edge.
- 2ITOT's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3IVV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
IVV leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ITOT | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.2% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.4% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | 12.6% | 12.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.8% | 16.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ITOT | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.6 | 56.3 |
| ADX (14) | 13.5 | 12.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.3% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.4% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.4% | 9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ITOT | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.9 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.33 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -9.1% |
| Current drawdown | -1.9% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 12.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.3% | -1.3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between ITOT and IVV?
ITOT holds 2,438 positions to IVV's 507, and 89% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do ITOT and IVV overlap?
ITOT and IVV share 88.86% of their weighted exposure across 504 common holdings. 1,928 holdings are unique to ITOT, and every IVV holding is also in ITOT. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, ITOT or IVV?
ITOT holds more positions: 2,438 versus 507 for IVV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.03% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.01% for ITOT and 1.09% for IVV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 13% annualized for ITOT and 12.8% for IVV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -25.4% for ITOT and -24.5% for IVV.
Compare ITOT and IVV with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.