EMD vs IVV
EMD vs IVV
Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Fund Inc vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | EMD | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.59% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $636M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 9.68% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 278 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +4.47% | +13.31% | |
| 1Y Return | +16.22% | +24.00% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.43% | +21.16% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +5.13% | +13.34% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.2% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -64.5% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Dec 1, 2003 | May 15, 2000 |
EMD vs IVV Performance
Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Fund Inc (EMD) is a ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year EMD returned +16.22% while IVV returned +24.00%. Year to date, EMD is up 4.47% versus a gain of 13.31% for IVV.
Over three years, EMD compounded at +17.43% per year against +21.16% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +5.13% and +13.34% respectively. Across the full 23-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.03% annualized vs -0.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
EMD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.2% compared with 15.1% 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 -64.5% for EMD and -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.66. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EMD charges 1.59% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $159 vs $3 annually, a gap of $156 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EMD currently yields 9.68% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
EMD and IVV share 0 holdings out of 641 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, EMD or IVV?
EMD has an expense ratio of 1.59% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $156 per year of difference.
Which performed better, EMD or IVV?
Over the past year EMD returned +16.22% vs +24.00% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (23 years), EMD annualized -0.33% vs +7.03% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, EMD or IVV?
EMD has been the more volatile fund at 17.2% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: EMD -64.5% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both EMD and IVV?
EMD and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.66, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between EMD and IVV?
EMD and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 641 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, EMD or IVV?
EMD yields 9.68% while IVV yields 1.09%, so EMD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.