BTR vs IVV
Beacon Tactical Risk ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, BTR or IVV?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 38.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 91.9%.
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 | BTR | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.08% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $30M | $882.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.15% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 24 | 508 |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.3%Best | 12.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -16.7%Best | -18.8% |
| $10,000 over 3.4 years | $10,558 | $19,292Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 91.9% | 38.1%Best |
| Fund Family | Beacon Capital Management | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 17, 2023 | May 15, 2000 |
Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized).
The two price series end 16 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. BTR has data through Sep 23, 2026 and IVV through Oct 9, 2026.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.4 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 18, 2023 to Sep 23, 2026 (3.4 years).
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.6% compared with 12.3% for BTR. 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 -16.7% for BTR and -18.8% 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 0.65. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BTR charges 1.08% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $108 vs $3 annually, a gap of $105 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BTR currently yields 1.15% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 11 holdings in BTR and 505 in IVV, totalling 99.5% and 99.9% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 11 positions we hold weights for in BTR and 505 in IVV, against full books of 24 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 497 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for BTR (99.3% of the fund), and 11 for BTR that do not appear in IVV (99.5%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BTR and IVV you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BTR or IVV?
BTR has an expense ratio of 1.08% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $105 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which is riskier, BTR or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 12.6% annualized versus 12.3% for BTR. Worst drawdown: BTR -16.7% vs IVV -18.8%.
Should I hold both BTR and IVV?
BTR and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.65, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, BTR or IVV?
BTR yields 1.15% while IVV yields 1.06%, so BTR currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than BTR?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 38.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 91.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.