IYR vs VOO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IYR and VOO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IYR is iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF, while VOO is Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. VOO is broader by holdings count, with 508 positions versus 63 for IYR. IYR is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VOO ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 55.
What is the main difference between IYR and VOO?
VOO holds 508 positions to IYR's 63, and 2% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IYR | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.37% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 63 | 508 |
| Top-10 concentration | 53.2% | 37.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.43% | 1.05% |
| Average volume | 5,580,083 | 7,814,237 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +1.7% | +16.4% |
| YTD return | +4.4% | +12.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +0.3% | +12.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 14.2% | 12.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.5% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -33.7% | -24.5% |
| Beta | 0.29 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.20 | 1.38 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 55/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 54/100 | 64/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 87/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO leads
VOO leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 4 evidence groups support VOO, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VOO over IYR, 64 versus 55 as of Oct 21, 2026. VOO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. VOO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VOO today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. VOO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 9 points over 30 sessions. VOO leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IYR vs VOO: 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 | IYR | VOO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.37% | 0.03% | VOO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 63 | 508 | VOO |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 53.2% | 37.6% | VOO |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.43% | 1.05% | IYR |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -33.7% | -24.5% | VOO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 14.2% | 12.8% | VOO |
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 IYR and VOO 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.
- Quality62 vs 77VOO +15
- Momentum54 vs 64VOO +10
- Risk Resilience80 vs 87VOO +7
- Value37 vs 41VOO +4
4 of 4 evidence groups favor VOO. VOO’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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 +10
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +17
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
VOO's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IYR and VOO 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 | IYR | VOO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.37% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 63 | 508 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 5,580,083 | 7,814,237 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 14.2% | 12.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.5% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | 0.91 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.29 | 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
IYR and VOO share 1.84% of their weighted exposure across 30 common holdings.
30 holdings are unique to IYR, and 475 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
IYR is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 53.22% of the fund, against 37.65% for VOO (63 holdings vs 508). 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 | IYR | VOO | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| WELLWELLTOWER | 11.39% | 0.26% | 0.26% |
| PLDPROLOGIS REIT | 8.99% | 0.21% | 0.21% |
| EQIXEQUINIX REIT | 4.61% | 0.16% | 0.16% |
| SPGSIMON PROPERTY GROUP REIT INC | 4.41% | 0.12% | 0.12% |
| AMTAMERICAN TOWER REIT | 4.19% | 0.12% | 0.12% |
| DLRDIGITAL REALTY TRUST REIT | 4.92% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| OREALTY INCOME REIT | 4.2% | 0.09% | 0.09% |
| PSAPUBLIC STORAGE REIT | 3.7% | 0.08% | 0.08% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What IYR adds that VOO doesn’t
| Holding | IYR | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| WELLWELLTOWER | 11.39% | 0.26% |
| PLDPROLOGIS REIT | 8.99% | 0.21% |
| DLRDIGITAL REALTY TRUST REIT | 4.92% | 0.1% |
| EQIXEQUINIX REIT | 4.61% | 0.16% |
| SPGSIMON PROPERTY GROUP REIT INC | 4.41% | 0.12% |
| OREALTY INCOME REIT | 4.2% | 0.09% |
What VOO adds that IYR doesn’t
| Holding | VOO | IYR |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 7.55% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.05% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.36% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.13% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.24% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.86% | Not held |
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.
IYR vs VOO: five-year payout growth
VOO grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.91% a year against IYR's 1.07%. VOO never reduced its annual distribution in the window; IYR did in 2 years. IYR: The 2020 payout was 22.1% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | IYR | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 1.07% | 5.91% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.210 | $5.303 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.330 | $7.068 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #125 of 138 | #88 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
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VOO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VOO | 55 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VOO | Value 37 vs 41 |
| Technicals | VOO | Price vs 50-day -2.7% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day -2.2% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VOO | Risk Resilience 80 vs 87 |
| 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 IYR and VOO and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 VOO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VOO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VOO +9
- 55 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- VOO +10
- 53 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- VOO +16
- 48 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- VOO +15
- 53 vs 68
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 31 when VOO moved ahead of IYR.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only IYR
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.45%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VOO
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.84%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling.
VOO 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.95%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, 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.
- 1IYR closes the Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to VOO's edge.
- 2IYR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VOO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate VOO's advantage entirely.
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
VOO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | IYR | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.4% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.7% | -0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.6% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.4% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | 4.4% | 12.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.7% | 16.4% |
Technicals
VOO has the stronger structure| Metric | IYR | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.5 | 56.2 |
| ADX (14) | 29.3 | 12.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.7% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.2% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 9.4% |
Risk
VOO is the more resilient| Metric | IYR | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.29 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.2 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -12.5% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -8.6% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 14.2% | 12.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IYR and VOO?
VOO holds 508 positions to IYR's 63, and 2% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IYR and VOO overlap?
IYR and VOO share 1.84% of their weighted exposure across 30 common holdings. 30 holdings are unique to IYR, and 475 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IYR or VOO?
VOO holds more positions: 508 versus 63 for IYR.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VOO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.37% for IYR.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
IYR, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.43% against 1.05% for VOO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IYR has been more volatile over the past year, at 14.2% annualized against 12.8% for VOO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VOO fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -24.5% against -33.7% for IYR.
Compare IYR and VOO 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.