BSMU vs IVV
Invesco BulletShares 2030 Municipal Bond ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. BSMU offers more diversification with 1,709 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BSMU | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $276M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.81% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 1,709 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +0.56% | +14.29% | |
| 1Y Return | +3.30% | +21.79% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +2.98% | +22.19% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -0.75% | +13.28% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 7.2% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -19.5% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 16, 2020 | May 15, 2000 |
BSMU vs IVV Performance
Invesco BulletShares 2030 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMU) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BSMU returned +3.30% while IVV returned +21.79%. Year to date, BSMU is up 0.56% versus a gain of 14.29% for IVV.
Over three years, BSMU compounded at +2.98% per year against +22.19% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are -0.75% and +13.28% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.06% annualized vs +0.24%. 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 7.2% for BSMU. 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 -19.5% for BSMU 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 0.65. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BSMU charges 0.18% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $3 annually, a gap of $15 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BSMU currently yields 2.81% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BSMU and IVV share 0 holdings out of 964 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, BSMU or IVV?
BSMU has an expense ratio of 0.18% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $15 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BSMU or IVV?
Over the past year BSMU returned +3.30% vs +21.79% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), BSMU annualized +0.24% vs +7.06% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BSMU or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 7.2% for BSMU. Worst drawdown: BSMU -19.5% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BSMU and IVV?
BSMU and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.65, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BSMU and IVV?
BSMU and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 964 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BSMU or IVV?
BSMU yields 2.81% while IVV yields 1.10%, so BSMU 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.