BCHI vs IVV
GMO Beyond China ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, BCHI or IVV?
BCHI has been ahead.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. BCHI led over 1Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.8%.
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 | BCHI | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.65% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $13M | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 21.46% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 100 | 508 |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.3% | 13.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -16.0%Best | -18.8% |
| $10,000 over 1.5 years | $15,176Best | $12,970 |
| Top 10 Weight | 47.8% | 37.9%Best |
| Fund Family | GMO | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Feb 12, 2025 | May 15, 2000 |
Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized).
The two price series end 21 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. BCHI has data through Aug 14, 2026 and IVV through Sep 4, 2026.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.5 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 13, 2025 to Aug 14, 2026 (1.5 years).
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BCHI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.3% compared with 13.5% 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 -16.0% for BCHI and -18.8% for IVV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.71. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BCHI charges 0.65% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $65 vs $3 annually, a gap of $62 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BCHI currently yields 21.46% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 89 holdings in BCHI and 505 in IVV, totalling 100.2% and 100.0% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 89 positions we hold weights for in BCHI and 505 in IVV, against full books of 100 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 497 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for BCHI (99.3% of the fund), and 3 for BCHI that do not appear in IVV (1.7%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BCHI and IVV you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BCHI or IVV?
BCHI has an expense ratio of 0.65% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $62 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which is riskier, BCHI or IVV?
BCHI has been the more volatile fund at 21.3% annualized versus 13.5% for IVV. Worst drawdown: BCHI -16.0% vs IVV -18.8%.
Should I hold both BCHI and IVV?
BCHI and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.71, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, BCHI or IVV?
BCHI yields 21.46% while IVV yields 1.10%, so BCHI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than BCHI?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. BCHI led over 1Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.