BATT vs IVV
Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. BATT delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BATT | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.59% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $124M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.77% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 54 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +9.22% | +13.22% | |
| 1Y Return | +48.03% | +21.62% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.83% | +22.17% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +0.37% | +13.42% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 30.6% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -69.4% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Amplify ETFs | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jun 4, 2018 | May 15, 2000 |
BATT vs IVV Performance
Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) is a ETF from Amplify ETFs and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BATT returned +48.03% while IVV returned +21.62%. Year to date, BATT is up 9.22% versus a gain of 13.22% for IVV.
Over three years, BATT compounded at +10.83% per year against +22.17% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +0.37% and +13.42% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.02% annualized vs -1.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BATT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.6% compared with 15.1% for IVV. 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 -69.4% for BATT 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 0.69. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BATT charges 0.59% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $59 vs $3 annually, a gap of $56 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BATT currently yields 1.77% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BATT and IVV share 3 holdings out of 554 unique holdings combined, representing a 1.8% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BATT or IVV?
BATT has an expense ratio of 0.59% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $56 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BATT or IVV?
Over the past year BATT returned +48.03% vs +21.62% for IVV, so BATT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), BATT annualized -1.47% vs +7.02% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BATT or IVV?
BATT has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: BATT -69.4% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BATT and IVV?
BATT and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.69, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BATT and IVV?
BATT and IVV share 3 common holdings with a 1.8% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 554 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BATT or IVV?
BATT yields 1.77% while IVV yields 1.10%, so BATT 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.