IVV holdings

Computed by this site from the fund's SEC Form N-PORT filing; what the measure does not tell you · every fund in one table · hold it with other funds? X-ray the mix. Pricing: 100% at a quoted market price (level 1), 9 issuer countries.

IVV's largest investment is Nvidia Corp at 7.51% of net assets. Apple Inc and Microsoft Corp follow; the three together are 18.38%. Ten companies are 36.38% of the fund; the other 497 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, IVV behaves like 51.5 holdings against a median of 42.4 — close to the median. Across 28 quarterly filings IVV has become more concentrated: it behaved like 111.9 at 2019-09-30 and 51.5 at 2026-06-30. Between the 2026-03-31 and 2026-06-30 filings 11 positions were added and 9 dropped; 8.8% of the weight moved.

Each sentence is read from the fund's own SEC filing; the class median is computed across the comparable equity funds on this site. Nothing here is a view on the fund.

Between 2019-09-30 and 2026-06-30, IVV went from behaving like 111.9 equally weighted positions to 51.5 — 54% fewer, while its top ten went from 21.55% to 36.38% of net assets. Read across the funds on the concentration-over-time table.

One row per filed reporting period, newest first, read from EDGAR. Quarterly because that is the public filing cadence. Rows marked * are published but held out of the comparison above; the methodology page says when and why.

Measured against every other fund on this site, from the same filings. Combined effective holdings is how the pair behaves held in equal size.

The 15 largest of 507 positions in IVV's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: IVV.csv.gz.

Share of IVV's own investments by the issuer country the filer reported (incorporation, not revenue). Each country links to every fund that holds it.

Monthly total returns from Item B.5 of IVV's own filings, 84 months on record. Not computed here and not from a price feed.

Cross-checked against a series computed separately from prices: median difference 0.05 percentage points over 84 months, which is roughly the distributions. Every month with the filing it came from: IVV.json · all funds.

The fund lends its holdings, and Item B.4.a of the filing names every firm holding them. At 2026-06-30, $1.5bn was out to 21 borrowers, 0.17% of net assets. The largest, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., held 24.7% of it.

Cash collateral reported against the loan: 0.17% of net assets, 101.5% of the amount lent. That is a floor on the collateral, not the whole of it — collateral the fund does not hold as a position is not in this filing, so a figure under 100% is not evidence of under-collateralisation. How that figure behaves across all funds. Every quarter IVV has filed, with each borrower: IVV.json · all funds.

504 positions became 506: 11 added (0.9% of the fund at the later date), 9 dropped (0.5% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 8.8%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of IVV compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.

New: Marvell Technology, Inc. (0.40%), Honeywell International, Inc. (0.11%), Honeywell Aerospace, Inc. (0.11%), Flex Ltd. (0.09%), Carnival Corp. Ltd. (0.06%), Casey's General Stores, Inc. (0.05%). Gone: Honeywell International, Inc. (0.26%), Carnival Corp. (0.05%), Coterra Energy, Inc. (0.05%), DuPont de Nemours, Inc. (0.03%), Hologic, Inc. (0.03%), Conagra Brands, Inc. (0.01%).

99.72% equity, 0.28% short-term investment as filed; 100.0% carried at a quoted market price (fair-value level 1). Categories and levels are the filer's; what a low level-1 share does and does not mean is in the measure's page.

A position count cannot describe a fund that uses derivatives, because a swap is filed at its unrealised gain, not its exposure. These are the notionals the fund itself reported, against net assets of $888.13B. Notional of an interest-rate or currency swap is not equity exposure.

Full detail for every fund that files derivatives: leverage.json (CC BY 4.0).

Every measured equity fund lined up by how many holdings it behaves like; these sit either side of IVV (51.5). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.

• 006 Expense ratio
• 004 Maximum drawdown
• 004 Factor exposure
• 003 Standard deviation
• 003 Total return
• 003 Beta
• 003 Turnover

The same filings read aloud in under a minute. Links open YouTube; nothing from it loads on this page.

• IVV vs XLK: owning both is less diversified than IVV alone (38% overlap) 2026-10-04
• IVV vs QQQ: owning both is less diversified than IVV alone (54% overlap) 2026-09-26
• Is IVV + VUG more diversified than IVV alone? No — 57% overlap 2026-09-21
• IVV + VTI: owning both makes you less diversified 2026-09-10
• ITOT + IVV: owning both makes you less diversified 2026-09-07

• Why 2,017 IWM Holdings Read as 33: Securities Lending in the Russell 2000 ETF

  IWM, the iShares Russell 2000 ETF, files 2,017 holdings but our concentration measure read it as 33. The cause is a 17% cash-collateral position from securities lending, flagged in the filing itself; set it aside and the fund's own investments behave like about 840. Seventy-three funds on this site, including IJH, IJR, RSP, LQD and HYG, had the same problem. What we found, what we changed today, and what is still open.

  14 Sept 2026 6 min ETF Analysis

• How ETFs Barely Pay Capital-Gains Tax: In-Kind Redemption and 'Heartbeat' Trades Explained

  ETFs rarely distribute capital gains because they hand appreciated securities to authorized participants "in kind" rather than selling them for cash — a...

  25 Aug 2026 10 min ETF Analysis

• SPY vs VOO vs IVV: The Three S&P 500 ETFs — Fees, Structure, and Tracking Difference

  All three track the same S&P 500 index; over five years their total returns and drawdowns sit within a rounding error of one another. The real separation is...

  14 Jun 2026 8 min ETF Analysis

• Why Tracking Error Matters More Than Expense Ratio in 2026

  VOO and IVV both charge 0.03%. The fee debate ends in a tie, which means the right framework question is no longer "which is cheaper?" but "which one tracks...

  19 May 2026 11 min Investment Framework

• VTI vs. AIEQ: Total Market Index vs. IBM Watson’s AI Selection Performance

  Over the trailing five years, VTI compounded at 11.8% annually while AIEQ — the IBM Watson-powered active equity ETF — compounded at 4.4%, a gap of roughly...

  05 May 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• How Jim Simons Built the Medallion Fund: Lessons for the Modern AI Investor

  Medallion's roughly 39% net annualized return over three decades is real, public, and almost entirely a function of capacity — capped near $10B and closed...

  22 Apr 2026 9 min Long-Term Strategy

• Tax-Loss Harvesting and the After-Tax Compounding Gap: What the Math Actually Shows

  Over a 30-year horizon, a 1-percentage-point reduction in annual tax drag compounds into roughly a one-third increase in terminal wealth — not because of...

  10 Mar 2026 10 min Long-Term Strategy

• Two Layers, Defined Roles: A Framework for Long-Horizon ETF Allocation

  A portfolio is not a list of tickers — it is a set of roles, and every position should answer one specific question about what job it does. A two-layer...

  20 Feb 2026 10 min Long-Term Strategy