BCCC vs IVV
Global X Bitcoin Covered Call 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 | BCCC | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $9M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 66.74% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 10 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | -29.88% | +13.43% | |
| 1Y Return | -42.21% | +22.61% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +21.47% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.26% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 31.3% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -46.0% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Global X by mirae Asset | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Alternative | Equity | |
| Inception | Jun 3, 2025 | May 15, 2000 |
BCCC vs IVV Performance
Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) is a ETF from Global X by mirae Asset and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BCCC returned -42.21% while IVV returned +22.61%. Year to date, BCCC is down 29.88% versus a gain of 13.43% for IVV.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BCCC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 31.3% 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 -46.0% for BCCC 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 0.37. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BCCC charges 0.75% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $3 annually, a gap of $72 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BCCC currently yields 66.74% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BCCC and IVV share 0 holdings out of 506 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, BCCC or IVV?
BCCC has an expense ratio of 0.75% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $72 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BCCC or IVV?
Over the past year BCCC returned -42.21% vs +22.61% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), BCCC annualized -28.60% vs +7.03% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BCCC or IVV?
BCCC has been the more volatile fund at 31.3% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: BCCC -46.0% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BCCC and IVV?
BCCC and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.37, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BCCC and IVV?
BCCC and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 506 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BCCC or IVV?
BCCC yields 66.74% while IVV yields 1.09%, so BCCC 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.