Data as of .
FGSI vs IVVW: which paid, and which earned it?
Over the year IVVW paid 17.5% of its price in cash against FGSI’s 8.1%, and returned more with it reinvested.
ETFIQ Return Stability Score: IVVW scores higher
Was the payout funded by returns, or by your own capital?
A percentile among the 173 income ETFs writing on an index or proxy. It is a position in a set, not a rating, and neither end of it is a recommendation. All income ETFs ranked by it · How it is computed
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, FGSI and IVVW hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Only in FGSI | Only in IVVW |
|---|---|
| Newmont Corporation 2.70% | ISHARES CORE S&P ETF TRUST 101.45% |
| Palantir Technologies Inc. (Class A) 2.63% | USD CASH 0.18% |
| Marvell Technology, Inc. 2.53% | OCT26 SPX C @ 7625.000000 -1.63% |
| Microsoft Corporation 2.45% | |
| Arista Networks, Inc. 2.32% | |
| DexCom, Inc. 2.28% | |
| Intuitive Surgical, Inc. 2.22% | |
| Target Corporation 2.22% |
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 Sep 18, 2026.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Cash paid | Against the benchmark | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FGSI | IVVW | FGSI | IVVW | FGSI | IVVW | |
| 3 months | +2.4% | +4.6% | 2.1% | 2.6% | +0.2 pts | +2.4 pts |
| 6 months | +10.0% | +13.1% | 4.4% | 7.9% | −8.0 pts | −4.9 pts |
| 1 year | +5.3% | +17.2% | 8.1% | 17.5% | −11.3 pts | +0.6 pts |
| Since launch | +11.9% | +38.9% | 9.8% | 39.7% | −14.3 pts | −14.9 pts |
| FGSI FT Vest Growth Strength & Target Income ETF Option income on SPY, paying monthly | IVVW iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF Covered call on SPY, paying monthly | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | First Trust | iShares |
| Strategy | option income | covered call |
| Benchmark | S&P 500 (SPY), used as a default proxy | S&P 500 (SPY) |
| Pays | monthly | monthly |
| Payout rate, annualized | 8.6% | 7.6% |
| Expense ratio | 0.85% | 0.25% |
| Cash paid, 1 year | 8.1% | 17.5% |
| Price change, 1 year | −3.2% | −2.0% |
| Total return, 1 year | +5.3% | +17.2% |
| Benchmark return, 1 year | +16.6% | +16.6% |
| Ahead or behind | −11.3 pts | +0.6 pts |
| Return of capital, latest estimate | not published | not published |
| Age | 449 days | 917 days |
| Net assets | $2m | $350m |
FGSI in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, FGSI paid 8.1% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 3.2%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +5.3%. S&P 500 (SPY), used as a default proxy returned +16.6% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 11.3 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 8.6%, paid monthly.
IVVW in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, IVVW paid 17.5% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 2.0%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +17.2%. S&P 500 (SPY) returned +16.6% over the same days, so a holder was ahead by 0.6 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 7.6%, paid monthly.
Questions people ask
- Which paid more, FGSI or IVVW?
- Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, FGSI paid 8.1% of its starting price in cash and IVVW paid 17.5%, so IVVW paid more. Cash paid is not the same as money made: the price change matters too.
- Which returned more once distributions are counted, FGSI or IVVW?
- With every distribution reinvested, FGSI returned +5.3% and IVVW returned +17.2% over the year to Sep 18, 2026, so IVVW returned more.
- Which is cheaper, FGSI or IVVW?
- FGSI charges 0.85% a year and IVVW charges 0.25%, so IVVW is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Other comparisons
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, FGSI against IVVW, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/fgsi-vs-ivvw Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.