BLCN vs IVV
Siren NexGen Economy 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 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BLCN | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.68% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $33M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.71% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 27 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +0.93% | +12.28% | |
| 1Y Return | +0.52% | +20.94% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +2.07% | +21.81% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -11.21% | +13.05% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 28.1% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -67.5% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | SRN Advisors | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Alternative | Equity | |
| Inception | Jan 16, 2018 | May 15, 2000 |
BLCN vs IVV Performance
Siren NexGen Economy ETF (BLCN) is a ETF from SRN Advisors and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BLCN returned +0.52% while IVV returned +20.94%. Year to date, BLCN is up 0.93% versus a gain of 12.28% for IVV.
Over three years, BLCN compounded at +2.07% per year against +21.81% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are -11.21% and +13.05% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +6.98% annualized vs +1.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BLCN has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 28.1% 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 -67.5% for BLCN 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 0.82. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BLCN charges 0.68% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $68 vs $3 annually, a gap of $65 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BLCN currently yields 2.71% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BLCN and IVV share 6 holdings out of 521 unique holdings combined, representing a 7.4% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BLCN or IVV?
BLCN has an expense ratio of 0.68% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $65 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BLCN or IVV?
Over the past year BLCN returned +0.52% vs +20.94% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), BLCN annualized +1.11% vs +6.98% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BLCN or IVV?
BLCN has been the more volatile fund at 28.1% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: BLCN -67.5% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BLCN and IVV?
BLCN and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.82, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BLCN and IVV?
BLCN and IVV share 6 common holdings with a 7.4% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 521 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BLCN or IVV?
BLCN yields 2.71% while IVV yields 1.10%, so BLCN 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.