BME vs IVV
BlackRock Health Sciences Trust vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. BME delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BME | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.14% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $595M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 7.05% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 156 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +12.08% | +14.29% | |
| 1Y Return | +32.53% | +21.79% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.85% | +22.19% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +4.65% | +13.28% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.1% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -44.6% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | BlackRock, Inc. (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 31, 2005 | May 15, 2000 |
BME vs IVV Performance
BlackRock Health Sciences Trust (BME) 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 BME returned +32.53% while IVV returned +21.79%. Year to date, BME is up 12.08% versus a gain of 14.29% for IVV.
Over three years, BME compounded at +10.85% per year against +22.19% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +4.65% and +13.28% respectively. Across the full 21-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.06% annualized vs +4.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BME has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.1% 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 -44.6% for BME 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 0.66. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BME charges 1.14% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $114 vs $3 annually, a gap of $111 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BME currently yields 7.05% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BME and IVV share 45 holdings out of 597 unique holdings combined, representing a 8.4% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BME or IVV?
BME has an expense ratio of 1.14% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $111 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BME or IVV?
Over the past year BME returned +32.53% vs +21.79% for IVV, so BME leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (21 years), BME annualized +4.45% vs +7.06% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BME or IVV?
BME has been the more volatile fund at 17.1% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: BME -44.6% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BME and IVV?
BME and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.66, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BME and IVV?
BME and IVV share 45 common holdings with a 8.4% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 597 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BME or IVV?
BME yields 7.05% while IVV yields 1.10%, so BME 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.