Key points (as at Q2 2026)
- IVV tracks the S&P 500 (503 companies, all sectors, 0.04% p.a.). NDQ tracks the Nasdaq-100 (~101 companies, tech-heavy, no financials, 0.48% p.a.).
- The two overlap heavily at the top — the same US mega-caps dominate both. Holding both concentrates rather than diversifies.
- Technology is approximately 56.9% of NDQ versus approximately 32.84% of IVV.
- General information only, not financial advice. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Last updated: Q2 2026. Figures are computed from ETFLens data as at Q2 2026, sourced from each issuer's published disclosure documents and reviewed quarterly.
IVV and NDQ are two of the most widely held United States ETFs on the ASX, and many Australians own both — often without realising how much they overlap. The honest way to frame this comparison is not "which one has performed better" (that is hindsight, and past performance tells you nothing reliable about the future). It is two structural questions: diversification versus a technology tilt, and fee and concentration trade-offs.
This article is general information only and not personal financial advice. ETFLens does not hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL).
Two different indices
IVV tracks the S&P 500: 503 of the largest US companies across every sector — technology, financials, healthcare, energy, consumer staples and more. It is a broad cross-section of corporate America.
NDQ tracks the Nasdaq-100: approximately 101 of the largest non-financial companies listed on the Nasdaq exchange. By construction the Nasdaq-100 excludes the financial sector entirely and leans heavily toward technology and high-growth companies. It is a narrower, more concentrated index than the S&P 500.
| Feature | IVV | NDQ |
|---|---|---|
| Index | S&P 500 | Nasdaq-100 |
| Holdings | 503 | 101 |
| Information technology weight | approximately 32.84% | approximately 56.9% |
| Financials | approximately 12.57% | excluded by index |
| MER | 0.04% p.a. | 0.48% p.a. |
| Fund size | $13.4B | $8.7B |
| Distributions | Quarterly | Semi-annually |
Holdings overlap: how much are you doubling up?
Despite tracking different indices, IVV and NDQ share most of their largest holdings, because the same US mega-caps sit at the top of both. Nvidia Corp (8.94%), Apple Inc (7.31%), Microsoft Corp (5.15%), Amazon.com Inc (4.68%), Micron Technology Inc (3.74%) are among NDQ's biggest positions — and the same names appear near the top of IVV. The difference is weighting: those companies make up a much larger share of NDQ, because NDQ holds far fewer companies and excludes whole sectors.
For an investor, the practical implication is that adding NDQ to IVV (or vice versa) does not bring in many new companies — it increases the weight of the US mega-cap technology names you already own. That can be exactly what someone wants, or the opposite; the point is to see it clearly rather than assume a second fund automatically means more diversification.
See the real overlap between IVV and NDQ
Use the ETFLens overlap checker to see the approximate proportion of holdings IVV and NDQ share, calculated from live data.
Check IVV vs NDQ overlap →Sector and "Magnificent 7" concentration
The clearest difference between the two funds is concentration. Information technology is approximately 56.9% of NDQ, versus approximately 32.84% of IVV. Add communication services (approximately 14% of NDQ) and the technology-and-internet tilt is even more pronounced. IVV, by contrast, spreads across financials (approximately 12.57%), healthcare (approximately 9.45%) and other sectors that NDQ holds lightly or not at all.
Both funds are also heavily exposed to the group of large US technology companies often called the "Magnificent 7". For a detailed breakdown of that exposure across IVV, NDQ and other funds, see Magnificent 7 ETFs Australia. Concentration is not inherently good or bad — it raises both the potential reward and the potential volatility. It is a trade-off, and whether it suits an investor depends on their circumstances, which ETFLens cannot assess.
Why the Nasdaq-100 leaves out financials
One structural quirk surprises many investors: the Nasdaq-100 excludes financial-sector companies entirely, by index rule. The index is built from the largest non-financial companies listed on the Nasdaq exchange, so banks, insurers and most diversified financials simply cannot appear in NDQ. IVV, tracking the broad S&P 500, holds financials at approximately 12.57%.
This matters because sectors take turns leading the market. In periods when financials, energy or other "old economy" sectors do well and technology lags, a fund that excludes them — like NDQ — can trail a broad fund like IVV, and the reverse can happen when technology leads. It is not a flaw, but it explains why the two funds can diverge meaningfully despite sharing so many top holdings. The difference is as much about what NDQ leaves out as what it includes.
What the concentration meant in 2022
The clearest real-world illustration of NDQ's higher concentration was 2022, when rising interest rates hit high-growth technology companies hardest. NDQ fell substantially more than broad-market funds that year, because its portfolio is so heavily weighted to the sectors that led the decline. In strong technology years the same concentration has worked in the opposite direction.
This is the trade-off in plain terms: a more concentrated fund tends to move further in both directions. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns, and ETFLens is not suggesting either outcome will repeat — the point is simply that NDQ's structure produces larger swings than a broad fund, which is part of what an investor is taking on.
Fee comparison
IVV charges 0.04% p.a. and NDQ charges 0.48% p.a. — a larger gap than between most broad-market funds. The table shows the approximate annual cost of each at three portfolio sizes (amount × MER ÷ 100).
| Investment | IVV (0.04%) | NDQ (0.48%) |
|---|---|---|
| $10,000 | $4/yr | $48/yr |
| $50,000 | $20/yr | $240/yr |
| $100,000 | $40/yr | $480/yr |
The higher fee on NDQ reflects its different index and strategy, not a lower-quality product. Because fees compound, it is worth modelling the long-run effect rather than judging on the annual figure alone — the Fee Analyser does this, and the IVV vs NDQ comparison shows both side by side. ETFLens does not project investment returns, so the tool isolates the fee impact rather than implying a forecast.
Historical returns (with the mandatory disclaimer)
As at Q2 2026, ETFLens shows reported returns of approximately 16.4% (1yr), 17.2% p.a. (3yr) and 14.2% p.a. (5yr) for IVV, and approximately 24.9% (1yr), 24.2% p.a. (3yr) and 16.5% p.a. (5yr) for NDQ. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
These figures cover a period in which technology led global markets, which flatters the more tech-concentrated fund. They tell you nothing reliable about which fund will do better next. ETFLens deliberately does not draw conclusions from past returns — choosing a fund on recent performance is one of the most common mistakes in investing.
Distributions and tax
The two funds also differ in how they pay income. IVV distributes quarterly with a trailing yield of approximately 1.1%; NDQ distributes semi-annually with a trailing yield of approximately 1%. Neither is an income-focused fund — both hold growth-oriented US companies that return more to shareholders through price appreciation than dividends — so income is a minor part of the picture for each.
Both IVV and NDQ are Australian-domiciled funds, so for an Australian investor they work like other ASX-listed Australian ETFs: you receive an AMIT statement each year and there is no need to lodge a US W-8BEN form yourself. Because both hold United States companies, their distributions are not franked — franking applies only to Australian-company profits — though they may carry a foreign income tax offset for US withholding tax. For the detail, see how ETF distributions are taxed in Australia. Tax treatment depends on your circumstances; speak with a registered tax adviser.
Holding both: overlap considerations
Because IVV and NDQ share so many top holdings, an investor who holds both ends up with significant combined concentration in US mega-cap technology — not necessarily the diversification a second fund implies. Investors holding both may wish to check their combined overlap using the ETFLens overlap checker to see exactly how concentrated the combination is. This is a neutral observation, not a suggestion to act either way.
Pairing either fund with broader exposure
Both IVV and NDQ are United States–only funds, and NDQ is narrower still — concentrated in technology and excluding entire sectors. Investors who want a single US holding to sit within a wider portfolio often pair it with broader funds rather than holding it alone:
- A global fund such as VGS adds Japan, Europe and other developed markets — though, as the IVV vs VGS guide explains, VGS is already heavily US, so the overlap with IVV is substantial.
- An Australian fund such as VAS or A200 adds the home market, which neither IVV nor NDQ holds.
Whichever way you combine funds, the overlap principle still applies: the more US-mega-cap-heavy funds you stack together, the more concentrated — not diversified — the result. Running the combination through the overlap checker shows the true picture before you buy. ETFLens does not assess whether any combination suits your circumstances.
Who each may suit
- IVV may suit investors seeking broad United States market exposure across all sectors at a lower ongoing cost, who are comfortable with full currency exposure.
- NDQ may suit investors seeking a technology and innovation tilt who are comfortable with higher concentration, higher fees and potentially larger price swings.
Whether either is appropriate depends on your objectives, situation and needs, which ETFLens cannot assess. If you are also weighing US-only versus global exposure, see IVV vs VGS; for the broader Nasdaq-versus-global question, see NDQ vs VGS; and for the three ways to access the S&P 500 itself, see the S&P 500 ETF Australia guide.
This article is general information only and not personal financial advice. ETFLens does not hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). Consider your own objectives, financial situation and needs, or speak with a licensed financial adviser before making investment decisions. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.