BBN vs IVV
BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust 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 | BBN | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.07% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $1.0B | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 7.16% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 202 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +2.11% | +13.22% | |
| 1Y Return | +6.43% | +21.62% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +7.72% | +22.17% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -3.13% | +13.42% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.8% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -38.4% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | BlackRock, Inc. (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Tax Preferred | Equity | |
| Inception | Aug 27, 2010 | May 15, 2000 |
BBN vs IVV Performance
BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN) is a ETF from BlackRock, Inc. (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BBN returned +6.43% while IVV returned +21.62%. Year to date, BBN is up 2.11% versus a gain of 13.22% for IVV.
Over three years, BBN compounded at +7.72% per year against +22.17% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are -3.13% and +13.42% respectively. Across the full 16-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.02% annualized vs +0.94%. 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 12.8% for BBN. 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 -38.4% for BBN 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 0.35. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BBN charges 1.07% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $107 vs $3 annually, a gap of $104 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BBN currently yields 7.16% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BBN and IVV share 0 holdings out of 596 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, BBN or IVV?
BBN has an expense ratio of 1.07% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $104 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BBN or IVV?
Over the past year BBN returned +6.43% vs +21.62% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (16 years), BBN annualized +0.94% vs +7.02% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BBN or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 12.8% for BBN. Worst drawdown: BBN -38.4% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BBN and IVV?
BBN and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.35, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BBN and IVV?
BBN and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 596 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BBN or IVV?
BBN yields 7.16% while IVV yields 1.10%, so BBN 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.