BTO vs IVV
John Hancock Financial Opportunities Fund 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 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BTO | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 2.96% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $709M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.18% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 184 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +17.11% | +12.71% | |
| 1Y Return | +19.55% | +21.89% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +24.15% | +22.08% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +5.83% | +12.96% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 31.1% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -95.5% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | John Hancock Investment Management | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Aug 18, 1994 | May 15, 2000 |
BTO vs IVV Performance
John Hancock Financial Opportunities Fund (BTO) is a ETF from John Hancock Investment Management and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BTO returned +19.55% while IVV returned +21.89%. Year to date, BTO is up 17.11% versus a gain of 12.71% for IVV.
Over three years, BTO compounded at +24.15% per year against +22.08% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +5.83% and +12.96% respectively. Across the full 23-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.00% annualized vs -4.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BTO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 31.1% 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 -95.5% for BTO 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 0.59. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BTO charges 2.96% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $296 vs $3 annually, a gap of $293 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BTO currently yields 6.18% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BTO and IVV share 9 holdings out of 630 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.6% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BTO or IVV?
BTO has an expense ratio of 2.96% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $293 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BTO or IVV?
Over the past year BTO returned +19.55% vs +21.89% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (23 years), BTO annualized -4.15% vs +7.00% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BTO or IVV?
BTO has been the more volatile fund at 31.1% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: BTO -95.5% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BTO and IVV?
BTO and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.59, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BTO and IVV?
BTO and IVV share 9 common holdings with a 0.6% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 630 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BTO or IVV?
BTO yields 6.18% while IVV yields 1.10%, so BTO 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.