BTZ vs IVV
BlackRock Credit Allocation Income Trust vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. BTZ offers more diversification with 2,036 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BTZ | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.12% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $1.0B | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 9.35% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 2,036 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +1.18% | +12.28% | |
| 1Y Return | +3.17% | +20.94% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.48% | +21.81% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +1.04% | +13.05% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -80.2% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | BlackRock, Inc. (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Dec 27, 2006 | May 15, 2000 |
BTZ vs IVV Performance
BlackRock Credit Allocation Income Trust (BTZ) 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 BTZ returned +3.17% while IVV returned +20.94%. Year to date, BTZ is up 1.18% versus a gain of 12.28% for IVV.
Over three years, BTZ compounded at +11.48% per year against +21.81% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +1.04% and +13.05% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +6.98% annualized vs -1.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BTZ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.2% 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 -80.2% for BTZ 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
BTZ charges 1.12% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $112 vs $3 annually, a gap of $109 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BTZ currently yields 9.35% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BTZ and IVV share 0 holdings out of 1646 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, BTZ or IVV?
BTZ has an expense ratio of 1.12% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $109 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BTZ or IVV?
Over the past year BTZ returned +3.17% vs +20.94% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), BTZ annualized -1.99% vs +6.98% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BTZ or IVV?
BTZ has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: BTZ -80.2% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BTZ and IVV?
BTZ 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 BTZ and IVV?
BTZ and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 1646 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BTZ or IVV?
BTZ yields 9.35% while IVV yields 1.10%, so BTZ 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.