IVV vs VOO vs SPYM: The Canadian Cost Is Mostly Outside the ETF

First, SPLG is now SPYM

The approved assignment said IVV versus VOO versus SPLG, but SPLG is no longer the live ticker. State Street rebranded the continuing fund in 2025, and its current product page and SEC listing identify it as the State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF, ticker SPYM.^[1][2][9] This is not a new fourth fund. The correct current comparison is IVV versus VOO versus SPYM, with the former ticker retained only so readers can connect older records and searches.

Quick answer

For a Canadian investor who already has U.S. dollars and wants a plain S&P 500 ETF, SPYM has the best fund-level cost case. It charges 0.02%, while IVV and VOO each charge 0.03%.^[1][3][4] All three showed roughly 0.01% 30-day median bid-ask spreads in the reviewed issuer data, all distribute quarterly, and all are enormous compared with any practical retail order.

The catch is scale: one basis point saves only US$1 annually per US$10,000. A Canadian-dollar conversion, a commission, or account-level withholding can outweigh decades of that difference. The best ETF and the best way to fund it are separate questions.

Same index, nearly the same result

IVV reported a 13.37% five-year annualized NAV return and VOO 13.36%; SPYM reported 13.37%.^[1][3][4] The S&P 500 benchmark was around 13.40%-13.41% in the same disclosures. These are tracking-level differences, not evidence that one portfolio manager discovered a return advantage.

SPYM's 0.02% fee is the clean tie-breaker. It also traded near US$90.78 on August 4, versus IVV at US$773.59 on August 5 and VOO near US$691 in the reviewed July snapshot.^[1][3][4] Where a broker does not offer fractional ETF shares, the lower price can leave less cash uninvested. If fractional shares are supported, that benefit mostly disappears.

The FX break-even calculator

The table below isolates SPYM's one-basis-point annual fee saving versus IVV or VOO. It assumes the same percentage FX cost on entry and exit, no compounding, and no future fee change. It does not quote or endorse any broker.

This does not mean a U.S.-listed ETF is always uneconomic. It means the comparison should start with the investor's funding path. Someone paid in U.S. dollars, reusing existing USD cash, or converting very cheaply faces a different decision from someone accepting a retail FX spread twice.

Commission structure matters too. A US$5 trade costs 0.05% on US$10,000—five years of a one-basis-point fee advantage before considering the eventual sale. Regular small contributions can make commissions and currency conversion more important than the annual MER.

The Canadian account-location test

The three funds have the same basic withholding profile because each is a U.S.-listed fund holding U.S. equities directly. The Canada-U.S. treaty generally limits U.S. dividend withholding for a Canadian resident to 15%, while qualifying pension or retirement arrangements can receive an exemption under Article XXI.^[5][7]

BlackRock's Canadian withholding guide says investors are generally exempt from U.S. withholding when they hold U.S.-listed ETFs or U.S. stocks directly in an RRSP or RRIF. It also says Canadian and U.S.-listed ETFs in taxable accounts are generally eligible for tax credits that can reduce the impact, subject to personal circumstances.^[6] Vanguard's guide likewise emphasizes that domicile and account type change the result.^[8]

That advantage is not a reason to choose SPYM over IVV or VOO; it applies to the structure shared by all three. It can, however, be a reason why a direct U.S.-listed wrapper behaves differently from a Canadian-listed fund-of-fund in an RRSP. Taxable accounts, TFSAs, FHSAs, RESPs, corporate accounts, and individual treaty status can produce different outcomes. Readers should verify their legal account and broker handling rather than extrapolate the RRSP rule.

A simple scale check shows why it matters. If the S&P 500 dividend yield were 1.1%, a 15% withholding layer would equal roughly 0.165% of assets annually, or US$16.50 per US$10,000. That illustration is more than sixteen times the one-basis-point fee gap. The actual distribution and recoverability vary, so it is a sensitivity test—not a promised saving.

Spread and scale are not differentiators here

IVV reported US$902.2 billion in net assets and a 0.01% median spread on August 5.^[3] VOO's reviewed issuer snapshot showed about US$995.5 billion in ETF share-class assets and a 0.01% median spread.^[4] SPYM had US$167.5 billion and a 0.01% spread on August 4.^[1]

SPYM is smaller only in relative terms. US$167 billion and million-share daily volume are more than adequate evidence of scale for ordinary investing. A live limit order remains sensible because published median spreads are backward-looking and volatile markets can widen quotes.

Bottom line

SPYM wins the fund-level scorecard with a 0.02% expense ratio, the same observed median spread as its rivals, and a lower share price.^[1] IVV and VOO remain operationally excellent at 0.03%, with huge asset bases and nearly identical tracking. There is no evidence-based reason to treat either as a bad substitute when brokerage access, automation, fractional trading, or existing holdings favour it.

For Canadians, solve the larger costs first: how CAD becomes USD, whether commissions apply, whether the account receives treaty treatment, and whether a future conversion back to CAD is likely. Only then does SPYM's one-basis-point edge become the deciding detail.