BAMA vs IVV
Brookstone Active ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BAMA | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.99% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $50M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.32% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 7 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +9.18% | +13.72% | |
| 1Y Return | +14.89% | +21.64% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +21.55% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.27% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 9.0% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -12.3% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Brookstone Asset Management | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 28, 2023 | May 15, 2000 |
BAMA vs IVV Performance
Brookstone Active ETF (BAMA) is a ETF from Brookstone Asset Management and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BAMA returned +14.89% while IVV returned +21.64%. Year to date, BAMA is up 9.18% versus a gain of 13.72% for IVV.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 9.0% for BAMA. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -12.3% for BAMA and -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BAMA charges 0.99% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $99 vs $3 annually, a gap of $96 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BAMA currently yields 1.32% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BAMA and IVV share 0 holdings out of 508 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BAMA or IVV?
BAMA has an expense ratio of 0.99% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $96 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BAMA or IVV?
Over the past year BAMA returned +14.89% vs +21.64% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (3 years), BAMA annualized +16.01% vs +7.04% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BAMA or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 9.0% for BAMA. Worst drawdown: BAMA -12.3% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BAMA and IVV?
BAMA and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between BAMA and IVV?
BAMA and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 508 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BAMA or IVV?
BAMA yields 1.32% while IVV yields 1.09%, so BAMA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.