BLES vs IVV
Inspire Global Hope ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, BLES or IVV?
IVV has been ahead.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. BLES is less concentrated, with 3.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%.
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 | BLES | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.60% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $166M | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.75% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 420 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +11.30% | +13.85%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.50% | +18.57%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.09% | +23.50%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.57% | +13.34%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.5% | 15.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -40.4% | -33.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,403 | $18,703Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 3.6%Best | 37.8% |
| Fund Family | Inspire ETFs | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Feb 27, 2017 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 28, 2017 to Sep 25, 2026 (9.6 years).
BLES vs IVV growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 9.6 years both funds cover.
BLES vs IVV Performance
Inspire Global Hope ETF (BLES) is an ETF from Inspire ETFs and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BLES returned +16.50% while IVV returned +18.57%. Year to date, BLES is up 11.30% versus a gain of 13.85% for IVV.
Over three years, BLES compounded at +17.09% per year against +23.50% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +7.57% and +13.34% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +14.07% annualized vs +8.97%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BLES has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.5% compared with 15.7% 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 -40.4% for BLES and -33.9% 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 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BLES charges 0.60% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $60 vs $3 annually, a gap of $57 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BLES currently yields 1.75% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
30.0% of BLES's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 11.7% of IVV's money is in holdings BLES also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
125 positions in common, counted across the 399 positions we hold weights for in BLES and 490 in IVV, against full books of 420 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 358 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for BLES (87.0% of the fund), and 74 for BLES that do not appear in IVV (18.2%).
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.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in BLES | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.23% | 2.65% | 2.42% |
| CATCaterpillar, Inc. | 0.18% | 0.55% | 0.37% |
| ANETArista Networks Inc Common Stock | 0.28% | 0.30% | 0.02% |
| APHAmphenol Corp. Class A | 0.22% | 0.29% | 0.07% |
| WELLWelltower, Inc. | 0.25% | 0.25% | 0.00% |
| KLACKla Corp | 0.15% | 0.35% | 0.20% |
| VLOValero Energy | 0.31% | 0.16% | 0.15% |
| MRVLMarvell Technology Group Ltd. | 0.18% | 0.28% | 0.10% |
| ICEInternational Exchange, Inc. | 0.31% | 0.14% | 0.17% |
| FCXFreeport-mcmoran Copper & Gold Inc. | 0.29% | 0.16% | 0.13% |
30.0% of BLES is already inside IVV.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BLES or IVV?
BLES has an expense ratio of 0.60% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $57 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BLES or IVV?
Over the past year BLES returned +16.50% vs +18.57% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), BLES annualized +8.97% vs +14.07% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BLES or IVV?
BLES has been the more volatile fund at 17.5% annualized versus 15.7% for IVV. Worst drawdown: BLES -40.4% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both BLES and IVV?
BLES and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between BLES and IVV?
30.0% of BLES's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 11.7% of IVV's is in holdings BLES also owns. They hold 125 positions in common, counted across the 399 positions we hold weights for in BLES and 490 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, BLES or IVV?
BLES yields 1.75% while IVV yields 1.06%, so BLES currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than BLES?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. BLES is less concentrated, with 3.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.