BMED vs IVV
iShares Health Innovation Active ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. BMED delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BMED | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.55% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $13M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.26% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 56 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +6.30% | +14.29% | |
| 1Y Return | +25.84% | +21.79% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.52% | +22.19% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +1.91% | +13.28% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -36.4% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | BlackRock, Inc. (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 29, 2020 | May 15, 2000 |
BMED vs IVV Performance
iShares Health Innovation Active ETF (BMED) 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 BMED returned +25.84% while IVV returned +21.79%. Year to date, BMED is up 6.30% versus a gain of 14.29% for IVV.
Over three years, BMED compounded at +10.52% per year against +22.19% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +1.91% and +13.28% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.06% annualized vs +4.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BMED has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.9% 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 -36.4% for BMED 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 0.69. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BMED charges 0.55% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $55 vs $3 annually, a gap of $52 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BMED currently yields 0.26% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BMED and IVV share 21 holdings out of 537 unique holdings combined, representing a 3.7% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BMED or IVV?
BMED has an expense ratio of 0.55% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $52 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BMED or IVV?
Over the past year BMED returned +25.84% vs +21.79% for IVV, so BMED leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), BMED annualized +4.08% vs +7.06% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BMED or IVV?
BMED has been the more volatile fund at 16.9% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: BMED -36.4% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BMED and IVV?
BMED and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.69, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BMED and IVV?
BMED and IVV share 21 common holdings with a 3.7% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 537 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BMED or IVV?
BMED yields 0.26% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IVV 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.