IVV vs JHML

Quick Verdict

IVV has a lower expense ratio. JHML delivered stronger 1-year returns. JHML offers more diversification with 734 holdings.

Lower Fees: IVVHigher Returns: JHMLMore Diversified: JHML

Side-by-Side Comparison

MetricIVVJHMLWinner
Expense Ratio0.03%0.29%
AUM$865.2B$1.2B
Dividend Yield1.09%0.97%
Holdings508780
YTD Return+13.52%+14.66%
1Y Return+23.63%+23.94%
3Y Return (annualized)+21.26%+19.32%
5Y Return (annualized)+13.52%+11.90%
Volatility (annualized)15.1%15.4%
Max Drawdown-56.5%-36.1%
Fund FamilyiShares by BlackRock (US)John Hancock Investment Management
CategoryEquityEquity
InceptionMay 15, 2000Sep 28, 2015

IVV vs JHML Performance

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and John Hancock Multifactor Large Cap ETF (JHML) is a ETF from John Hancock Investment Management. Over the past year IVV returned +23.63% while JHML returned +23.94%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.52% versus a gain of 14.66% for JHML.

Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.26% per year against +19.32% for JHML; over five years the annualized figures are +13.52% and +11.90% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, JHML has the edge at +13.49% annualized vs +7.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

JHML has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.4% 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 -56.5% for IVV and -36.1% for JHML. 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 0.98. 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 JHML charges 0.29%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $29 annually, a gap of $26 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 0.97% for JHML.

Holdings Overlap

73.6%overlap

IVV and JHML share 468 holdings out of 771 unique holdings combined, representing a 73.6% weight overlap.

High overlap means holding both may not provide much additional diversification.

Top Shared Holdings

StockWeight in IVVWeight in JHMLDifference
NVDA7.76%4.54%3.22%
AAPL7.44%4.15%3.29%
MSFT4.57%2.86%1.71%
AMZNProProPro
GOOGLProProPro
AVGOProProPro
METAProProPro
GOOGProProPro
MUProProPro
TSLAProProPro
See all 10 holdings IVV shares with JHML
Exact weights in each fund and the difference, for every overlapping position.
Get FundXLS Pro: $29/moFirst 500 subscribers, then $49/mo. Cancel anytime.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IVV or JHML?

IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while JHML charges 0.29%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $26 per year of difference.

Which performed better, IVV or JHML?

Over the past year IVV returned +23.63% vs +23.94% for JHML, so JHML leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), IVV annualized +7.04% vs +13.49% for JHML. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Which is riskier, IVV or JHML?

JHML has been the more volatile fund at 15.4% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs JHML -36.1%.

Should I hold both IVV and JHML?

IVV and JHML have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.

What is the holdings overlap between IVV and JHML?

IVV and JHML share 468 common holdings with a 73.6% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 771 unique securities.

Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or JHML?

IVV yields 1.09% while JHML yields 0.97%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Get Full ETF Analytics

Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.

See inside every ETF you own
$29/moCancel anytime.
Try FundXLS →