BMED vs IVV
iShares Health Innovation Active ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, BMED or IVV?
All Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. BMED led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 43.1%.
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 | BMED | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.55% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $14M | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.26% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 61 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +12.45% | +13.39%Best |
| 1Y Return | +29.03%Best | +20.08% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +12.81% | +21.29%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +2.02% | +12.88%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.1% | 15.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -36.4% | -24.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $11,052 | $18,327Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 43.1% | 37.9%Best |
| Fund Family | BlackRock, Inc. (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | All Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 29, 2020 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 1, 2020 to Sep 4, 2026 (5.9 years).
BMED 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 5.9 years both funds cover.
BMED vs IVV Performance
iShares Health Innovation Active ETF (BMED) is an ETF from BlackRock, Inc. (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BMED returned +29.03% while IVV returned +20.08%. Year to date, BMED is up 12.45% versus a gain of 13.39% for IVV.
Over three years, BMED compounded at +12.81% per year against +21.29% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +2.02% and +12.88% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +16.49% annualized vs +5.03%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BMED has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.1% compared with 15.4% 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 -24.5% 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 0.68. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
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
72.5% of BMED's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 4.5% of IVV's money is in holdings BMED also owns.
Most of BMED is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
22 positions in common, counted across the 53 positions we hold weights for in BMED and 505 in IVV, against full books of 61 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 475 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for BMED (94.8% of the fund), and 22 for BMED that do not appear in IVV (18.6%).
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 BMED | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 5.76% | 0.48% | 5.28% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 4.46% | 0.93% | 3.53% |
| GILDGilead Sciences | 4.86% | 0.25% | 4.61% |
| EWEdwards Lifesciences Corp | 4.51% | 0.08% | 4.43% |
| XTSLABlackrock Cash Funds: Treasury, Sl Agency Shares | 4.34% | 0.18% | 4.16% |
| TMOThermo Fisherscientific Inc. | 4.16% | 0.32% | 3.84% |
| CRLCharles River Laboratories International Inc | 4.12% | 0.02% | 4.10% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 3.33% | 0.65% | 2.68% |
| DHRDanaher Corporation | 3.67% | 0.19% | 3.48% |
| WATWaters Corp. | 3.67% | 0.06% | 3.61% |
72.5% of BMED 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, BMED or IVV?
BMED has an expense ratio of 0.55% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $52 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BMED or IVV?
Over the past year BMED returned +29.03% vs +20.08% for IVV, so BMED leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), BMED annualized +5.03% vs +16.49% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BMED or IVV?
BMED has been the more volatile fund at 17.1% annualized versus 15.4% for IVV. Worst drawdown: BMED -36.4% vs IVV -24.5%.
Should I hold both BMED and IVV?
BMED and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.68, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between BMED and IVV?
72.5% of BMED's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 4.5% of IVV's is in holdings BMED also owns. They hold 22 positions in common, counted across the 53 positions we hold weights for in BMED and 505 in IVV.
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.
Is IVV better than BMED?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. BMED led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 43.1%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.