BBMC vs SPY
JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Mid Cap Equity ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
Which is better, BBMC or SPY?
Mid Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
BBMC has a lower expense ratio. BBMC led over 1Y, SPY over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. BBMC is less concentrated, with 7.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BBMC | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.07%Best | 0.09% |
| AUM | $2.1B | $804.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.12% | 0.98% |
| Holdings | 467 | 505 |
| YTD Return | +14.79%Best | +11.97% |
| 1Y Return | +19.04%Best | +16.40% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.27% | +21.10%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.10% | +12.88%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.6% | 15.3%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -30.1% | -24.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,761 | $18,327Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 7.7%Best | 37.8% |
| Fund Family | J.P. Morgan Asset Management | State Street Investment Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 14, 2020 | Jan 22, 1993 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 15, 2020 to Sep 14, 2026 (6.4 years).
BBMC vs SPY growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 6.4 years both funds cover.
BBMC vs SPY Performance
JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Mid Cap Equity ETF (BBMC) is an ETF from J.P. Morgan Asset Management and State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) is an ETF from State Street Investment Management. Over the past year BBMC returned +19.04% while SPY returned +16.40%. Year to date, BBMC is up 14.79% versus a gain of 11.97% for SPY.
Over three years, BBMC compounded at +18.27% per year against +21.10% for SPY; over five years the annualized figures are +8.10% and +12.88% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, SPY has the edge at +18.37% annualized vs +16.75%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BBMC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.6% compared with 15.3% for SPY. 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 -30.1% for BBMC and -24.5% for SPY. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.88. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BBMC charges 0.07% per year while SPY charges 0.09%. On a $10,000 position that is $7 vs $9 annually, a gap of $2 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BBMC currently yields 1.12% against 0.98% for SPY.
Holdings Overlap
20.7% of BBMC's money is in holdings SPY also owns. 1.5% of SPY's money is in holdings BBMC also owns.
BBMC and SPY share little of their money.
74 positions in common, counted across the 448 positions we hold weights for in BBMC and 504 in SPY, against full books of 467 and 505.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 423 positions for SPY that do not appear in our book for BBMC (97.8% of the fund), and 360 for BBMC that do not appear in SPY (72.9%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in BBMC | Weight in SPY | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRNAModerna therapeutics | 1.06% | 0.08% | 0.98% |
| CASYCaseys General | 0.59% | 0.04% | 0.55% |
| WSMWilliams-sonoma Inc | 0.57% | 0.04% | 0.53% |
| TPRTapestry Inc. | 0.53% | 0.04% | 0.49% |
| QQnity Electronics Inc | 0.53% | 0.04% | 0.49% |
| RDDTReddit Inc-Cl A | 0.44% | 0.03% | 0.41% |
| CFCf Industries Holdings Inc. | 0.42% | 0.03% | 0.39% |
| VTRSViatris Inc. | 0.39% | 0.03% | 0.36% |
| CHRWCH Robinson Worldwide | 0.36% | 0.03% | 0.33% |
| ZBRAZebra Technologies Corp | 0.36% | 0.02% | 0.34% |
20.7% of BBMC is already inside SPY.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BBMC or SPY?
BBMC has an expense ratio of 0.07% while SPY charges 0.09%. BBMC is the cheaper option, by $2 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BBMC or SPY?
Over the past year BBMC returned +19.04% vs +16.40% for SPY, so BBMC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), BBMC annualized +16.75% vs +18.37% for SPY. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BBMC or SPY?
BBMC has been the more volatile fund at 18.6% annualized versus 15.3% for SPY. Worst drawdown: BBMC -30.1% vs SPY -24.5%.
Should I hold both BBMC and SPY?
BBMC and SPY have a monthly-return correlation of 0.88, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between BBMC and SPY?
20.7% of BBMC's money is in holdings SPY also owns. 1.5% of SPY's is in holdings BBMC also owns. They hold 74 positions in common, counted across the 448 positions we hold weights for in BBMC and 504 in SPY.
Which pays a higher dividend, BBMC or SPY?
BBMC yields 1.12% while SPY yields 0.98%, so BBMC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SPY better than BBMC?
BBMC has a lower expense ratio. BBMC led over 1Y, SPY over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. BBMC is less concentrated, with 7.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.