BCI vs IVV
abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. BCI delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BCI | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.26% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $3.0B | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 14.52% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 50 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +26.12% | +13.72% | |
| 1Y Return | +40.31% | +21.64% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +13.63% | +21.55% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.97% | +13.27% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.3% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -32.7% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Aberdeen | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Commodity | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 30, 2017 | May 15, 2000 |
BCI vs IVV Performance
abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) 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 BCI returned +40.31% while IVV returned +21.64%. Year to date, BCI is up 26.12% versus a gain of 13.72% for IVV.
Over three years, BCI compounded at +13.63% per year against +21.55% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +10.97% and +13.27% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, BCI has the edge at +7.28% annualized vs +7.04%. 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 14.3% for BCI. 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 -32.7% for BCI 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
BCI charges 0.26% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $26 vs $3 annually, a gap of $23 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BCI currently yields 14.52% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BCI 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, BCI or IVV?
BCI has an expense ratio of 0.26% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $23 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BCI or IVV?
Over the past year BCI returned +40.31% vs +21.64% for IVV, so BCI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), BCI annualized +7.28% vs +7.04% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BCI or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 14.3% for BCI. Worst drawdown: BCI -32.7% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BCI and IVV?
BCI 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 BCI and IVV?
BCI and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 507 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BCI or IVV?
BCI yields 14.52% while IVV yields 1.09%, so BCI 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.