BHK vs IVV
BlackRock Core Bond Trust vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. BHK offers more diversification with 1,627 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BHK | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 3.68% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $677M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 9.61% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 1,627 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | -0.02% | +12.28% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.89% | +20.94% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +4.75% | +21.81% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -3.83% | +13.05% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.5% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -45.8% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | BlackRock, Inc. (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Nov 30, 2001 | May 15, 2000 |
BHK vs IVV Performance
BlackRock Core Bond Trust (BHK) 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 BHK returned +2.89% while IVV returned +20.94%. Year to date, BHK is down 0.02% versus a gain of 12.28% for IVV.
Over three years, BHK compounded at +4.75% per year against +21.81% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are -3.83% and +13.05% respectively. Across the full 25-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +6.98% annualized vs -0.24%. 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 12.5% for BHK. 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 -45.8% for BHK 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
BHK charges 3.68% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $368 vs $3 annually, a gap of $365 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BHK currently yields 9.61% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BHK and IVV share 3 holdings out of 1565 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.4% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BHK or IVV?
BHK has an expense ratio of 3.68% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $365 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BHK or IVV?
Over the past year BHK returned +2.89% vs +20.94% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (25 years), BHK annualized -0.24% vs +6.98% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BHK or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 12.5% for BHK. Worst drawdown: BHK -45.8% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BHK and IVV?
BHK 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 BHK and IVV?
BHK and IVV share 3 common holdings with a 0.4% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 1565 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BHK or IVV?
BHK yields 9.61% while IVV yields 1.10%, so BHK 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.