BMN vs IVV
BlackRock 2037 Municipal Target Term Trust 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 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BMN | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 2.17% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $156M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 4.32% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 170 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | -0.70% | +13.80% | |
| 1Y Return | +8.90% | +23.01% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +5.28% | +21.77% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.39% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 9.5% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -13.0% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | BlackRock, Inc. (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Oct 26, 2022 | May 15, 2000 |
BMN vs IVV Performance
BlackRock 2037 Municipal Target Term Trust (BMN) 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 BMN returned +8.90% while IVV returned +23.01%. Year to date, BMN is down 0.70% versus a gain of 13.80% for IVV.
Over three years, BMN compounded at +5.28% per year against +21.77% for IVV. Across the full 4-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.04% annualized vs +4.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 9.5% for BMN. 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 -13.0% for BMN 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 0.55. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BMN charges 2.17% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $217 vs $3 annually, a gap of $214 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BMN currently yields 4.32% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BMN and IVV share 0 holdings out of 568 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BMN or IVV?
BMN has an expense ratio of 2.17% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $214 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BMN or IVV?
Over the past year BMN returned +8.90% vs +23.01% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), BMN annualized +4.44% vs +7.04% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BMN or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 9.5% for BMN. Worst drawdown: BMN -13.0% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BMN and IVV?
BMN and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.55, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BMN and IVV?
BMN and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 568 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BMN or IVV?
BMN yields 4.32% while IVV yields 1.09%, so BMN 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.