ILCV vs RPV: how they differ

ILCV and RPV hold 15% of their weight in the same names. iShares Morningstar Value ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Pure Value ETF.

ILCV costs 0.31 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 0.2 points; RPV is 1.2 times larger.

ILCVRPV
Expense ratio0.04%0.35%
Net assets$1.4bn$1.7bn
Total return, 1 year+22.0%+22.2%
Holdings in common15%
Nasdaq-100, total return, 1 year+23.6%
Top ten holdings, share of the fund35.8%22.6%
Below its high4.4%, high on Sep 3, 2026

Holdings in common uses holdings dated Oct 8, 2026.

+22.0%
ILCV total return, 1 year
+22.2%
RPV total return, 1 year
0.04%
ILCV expense ratio
0.35%
RPV expense ratio

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ILCV and RPV hold 15% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Oct 8, 2026.

half

15% in common

Positions both hold, largest shared weight first
Holding ILCV RPV
CHEVRON 1.15% 0.65%
CITIGROUP 0.63% 0.88%
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP 0.97% 0.62%
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC 0.56% 0.64%
EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP 2.02% 0.52%
AT&T 0.50% 0.49%
CONOCOPHILLIPS 0.47% 0.56%
PFIZER 0.46% 0.40%
VALERO ENERGY CORP 0.37% 2.39%
BANK OF AMERICA 1.01% 0.35%
CHUBB 0.35% 0.47%
WALT DISNEY 0.54% 0.35%
Only in ILCV
MICROSOFT 8.53%
APPLE 7.23%
AMAZON.COM INC 3.29%
META PLATFORMS CLASS A 2.95%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CLASS B 2.75%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 2.57%
ALPHABET CLASS A 2.56%
ALPHABET CLASS C 2.06%
Only in RPV
Everest Group Ltd 1.55%
Mosaic Co/The 1.43%
APA Corp 1.27%
Franklin Templeton Inc 1.24%
Stanley Black & Decker Inc 1.16%
Best Buy Co Inc 1.03%
Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc 0.95%
Baxter International Inc 0.92%

Check overlap with more funds →

On the same fields

ILCV
iShares Morningstar Value ETF
RPV
Invesco S&P 500 Pure Value ETF
Where it sits Stock ETF Stock ETF
What it is Tracks an index Tracks an index
Total return, 1 year +22.0% +22.2%
S&P 500 over the same days +17.3% +17.3%
Gap to the S&P 500 +4.8 pts +5.0 pts
Expense ratio 0.04% 0.35%
Already in the S&P 500 96.0% 99.1%
Holdings 374 120
Net assets $1.4bn $1.7bn

ILCV and RPV on the fields both publish, as of Oct 9, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

ILCV in plain words

ILCV tracks an index. Over the year to Oct 9, 2026 it returned +22.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.3% for the S&P 500 and +23.6% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 8, 2026, 96% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 374 positions, with the top ten at 35.8%.

RPV in plain words

RPV tracks an index. Over the year to Oct 9, 2026 it returned +22.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.3% for the S&P 500 and +23.6% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.35% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 8, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 120 positions, with the top ten at 22.6%. It sat 4.4% below its high of Sep 3, 2026 on Oct 9, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ILCV or RPV?
In the year to Oct 9, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ILCV returned +22.0% and RPV +22.2%.
Which is cheaper, ILCV or RPV?
ILCV is cheaper, by 0.31 percentage points a year. On $10,000 held for a year that difference is about $31. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ILCV and RPV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of ILCV and 99% of RPV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds.
Other comparisons
Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure; a link is not an endorsement. A comparison is not a recommendation.

How this is computed

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed.

Cite this page

ETFIQ, ILCV against RPV, data as of Oct 9, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ilcv-vs-rpv

Open data

Free to use with attribution for figures ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.