BTAL vs IVV
AGF US Market Neutral Anti-Beta Fund ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, BTAL or IVV?
Opposite sides of the same exposure.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two move opposite each other, correlation -0.61, so holding both offsets the exposure while paying both fees.
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 | BTAL | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.40% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $306M | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 2.92% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 402 | 508 |
| YTD Return | -12.24% | +11.57%Best |
| 1Y Return | -20.50% | +17.57%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -9.83% | +20.71%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -4.03% | +12.80%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.8% | 14.2%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -52.7% | -33.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $8,141 | $18,262Best |
| Fund Family | AGFiQ | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 13, 2011 | May 15, 2000 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 13, 2011 to Sep 10, 2026 (15 years).
BTAL 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
BTAL vs IVV Performance
AGF US Market Neutral Anti-Beta Fund ETF (BTAL) is an ETF from AGFiQ and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BTAL returned -20.50% while IVV returned +17.57%. Year to date, BTAL is down 12.24% versus a gain of 11.57% for IVV.
Over three years, BTAL compounded at -9.83% per year against +20.71% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are -4.03% and +12.80% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +13.82% annualized vs -3.52%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BTAL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.8% compared with 14.2% 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 -52.7% for BTAL and -33.9% 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 -0.61. They move opposite each other. Holding both offsets the exposure rather than spreading it, while paying both funds' fees.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BTAL charges 1.40% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $140 vs $3 annually, a gap of $137 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BTAL currently yields 2.92% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
At least 36.5% of IVV's money is in holdings BTAL also owns.
Stated as a floor: for BTAL, our book for it covers 78.5% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
They hold the same names on opposite sides, so owning both offsets the exposure rather than doubling it.
192 positions in common, counted across the 399 positions we hold weights for in BTAL and 505 in IVV, against full books of 402 and 508.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in BTAL | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | -0.31% | 4.01% | 4.32% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | -0.33% | 2.98% | 3.31% |
| METAMeta Platforms, Inc. | -0.30% | 1.94% | 2.24% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 0.43% | 0.93% | 0.50% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 0.47% | 0.65% | 0.18% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 0.38% | 0.72% | 0.34% |
| TSLATesla Inc | -0.27% | 1.36% | 1.63% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | -0.49% | 1.51% | 2.00% |
| RTXRtx Corp. | 0.45% | 0.45% | 0.00% |
| PMPhilip Morris International Inc. | 0.38% | 0.44% | 0.06% |
36.5% of IVV is already inside BTAL.
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, BTAL or IVV?
BTAL has an expense ratio of 1.40% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $137 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BTAL or IVV?
Over the past year BTAL returned -20.50% vs +17.57% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), BTAL annualized -3.52% vs +13.82% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BTAL or IVV?
BTAL has been the more volatile fund at 14.8% annualized versus 14.2% for IVV. Worst drawdown: BTAL -52.7% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both BTAL and IVV?
BTAL and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of -0.61, so they move opposite each other. Holding both offsets the exposure rather than spreading it, and pays both funds' fees on the way. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between BTAL and IVV?
At least 36.5% of IVV's money is in holdings BTAL also owns. Our book for BTAL is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 192 positions in common, counted across the 399 positions we hold weights for in BTAL and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, BTAL or IVV?
BTAL yields 2.92% while IVV yields 1.06%, so BTAL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than BTAL?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two move opposite each other, correlation -0.61, so holding both offsets the exposure while paying both fees. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.