BAMO vs IVV
Brookstone Opportunities 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 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BAMO | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.06% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $47M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.45% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 7 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +6.80% | +12.28% | |
| 1Y Return | +11.90% | +20.94% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +13.45% | +21.81% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.05% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 7.5% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -12.7% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Brookstone Asset Management | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 28, 2023 | May 15, 2000 |
BAMO vs IVV Performance
Brookstone Opportunities ETF (BAMO) 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 BAMO returned +11.90% while IVV returned +20.94%. Year to date, BAMO is up 6.80% versus a gain of 12.28% for IVV.
Over three years, BAMO compounded at +13.45% per year against +21.81% for IVV. Across the full 3-year window we track, BAMO has the edge at +13.45% annualized vs +6.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 7.5% for BAMO. 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 -12.7% for BAMO 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 0.98. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BAMO charges 1.06% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $106 vs $3 annually, a gap of $103 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BAMO currently yields 1.45% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BAMO and IVV share 0 holdings out of 510 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, BAMO or IVV?
BAMO has an expense ratio of 1.06% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $103 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BAMO or IVV?
Over the past year BAMO returned +11.90% vs +20.94% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (3 years), BAMO annualized +13.45% vs +6.98% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BAMO or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 7.5% for BAMO. Worst drawdown: BAMO -12.7% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BAMO and IVV?
BAMO and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, 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 BAMO and IVV?
BAMO and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 510 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BAMO or IVV?
BAMO yields 1.45% while IVV yields 1.10%, so BAMO 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.