Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IVV vs XAR: how they differ
Over the year IVV returned more, +17.6% against +11.8%, and IVV charges 0.03% against 0.35%.
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF and State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Aerospace & Defense ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IVV and XAR hold 2% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IVV | XAR |
|---|---|---|
| GE Aerospace | 0.60% | 3.04% |
| RTX Corp. | 0.40% | 3.34% |
| Boeing Co. (The) | 0.27% | 2.93% |
| Howmet Aerospace, Inc. | 0.17% | 2.73% |
| Lockheed Martin Corp. | 0.16% | 3.02% |
| General Dynamics Corp. | 0.14% | 3.11% |
| TransDigm Group, Inc. | 0.12% | 2.78% |
| Northrop Grumman Corp. | 0.11% | 2.86% |
| L3Harris Technologies, Inc. | 0.08% | 2.45% |
| Axon Enterprise, Inc. | 0.07% | 3.20% |
| Textron, Inc. | 0.03% | 2.59% |
| Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. | 0.02% | 2.91% |
| Only in IVV | Only in XAR |
|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp. 7.52% | VSE CORP 3.33% |
| Apple, Inc. 6.59% | ATI INC 3.25% |
| Microsoft Corp. 4.30% | ARCHER AVIATION INC A 3.23% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. 3.62% | HEXCEL CORP 2.93% |
| Alphabet, Inc. 3.25% | HEICO CORP 2.91% |
| Broadcom, Inc. 2.77% | MOOG INC CLASS A 2.87% |
| Alphabet, Inc. 2.59% | STANDARDAERO INC 2.86% |
| Micron Technology, Inc. 2.02% | WOODWARD INC 2.71% |
Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Jun 30, 2026 and Sep 10, 2026.
| IVV iShares Core S&P 500 ETF | XAR State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Aerospace & Defense ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Thematic ETF |
| Issuer | iShares | State Street |
| What it is | S&P 500 | Defense |
| Total return, 1 year | +17.6% | +11.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +0.1 pts | −5.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.35% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 100.0% | 35.0% |
| Holdings | 504 | 49 |
IVV in plain words
IVV is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 504 positions, with the top ten at 36.4%.
XAR in plain words
By weight, 35% of XAR's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 98%. The top ten holdings are 31% of the fund across 49 positions, as published by its issuer for Sep 10, 2026. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 the fund returned +11.8% with distributions reinvested against +17.5% for the S&P 500, so a holder was behind by 5.7 pts. It sits 17.1% below its all-time high of Aug 14, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IVV or XAR?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IVV returned +17.6% and XAR returned +11.8%, so IVV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IVV or XAR?
- IVV charges 0.03% a year and XAR charges 0.35%, so IVV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IVV and XAR overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 100% of IVV and 35% of XAR by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 2% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.
- Are IVV and XAR the same kind of fund?
- No. IVV is an index ETF and XAR is a thematic ETF, so they are built for different jobs. The table compares what both publish: return, cost and what each actually holds.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, IVV against XAR, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IVV-XAR Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources