BCD vs IVV
BCD vs IVV
abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. BCD delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BCD | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.30% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $402M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 15.69% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 47 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +16.88% | +13.80% | |
| 1Y Return | +28.78% | +23.70% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.30% | +21.49% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.45% | +13.43% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.9% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -29.8% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Aberdeen | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Commodity | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 30, 2017 | May 15, 2000 |
BCD vs IVV Performance
abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCD) is a ETF from Aberdeen and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BCD returned +28.78% while IVV returned +23.70%. Year to date, BCD is up 16.88% versus a gain of 13.80% for IVV.
Over three years, BCD compounded at +11.30% per year against +21.49% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +11.45% and +13.43% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, BCD has the edge at +8.78% annualized vs +7.05%. 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 12.9% for BCD. 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 -29.8% for BCD 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 0.40. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BCD charges 0.30% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $30 vs $3 annually, a gap of $27 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BCD currently yields 15.69% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BCD and IVV share 0 holdings out of 507 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, BCD or IVV?
BCD has an expense ratio of 0.30% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $27 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BCD or IVV?
Over the past year BCD returned +28.78% vs +23.70% for IVV, so BCD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), BCD annualized +8.78% vs +7.05% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BCD or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 12.9% for BCD. Worst drawdown: BCD -29.8% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BCD and IVV?
BCD and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.40, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BCD and IVV?
BCD and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 507 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BCD or IVV?
BCD yields 15.69% while IVV yields 1.09%, so BCD 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.