BTZ vs VYM
BlackRock Credit Allocation Income Trust vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
Quick Verdict
VYM has a lower expense ratio. VYM delivered stronger 1-year returns. BTZ offers more diversification with 1141 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BTZ | VYM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.12% | 0.04% | |
| AUM | $1.0B | $79.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 9.18% | 2.86% | |
| Holdings | 2,036 | 568 | |
| YTD Return | +1.34% | +16.78% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.43% | +24.43% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.68% | +18.60% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +0.92% | +12.30% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 14.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -80.2% | -58.8% | |
| Fund Family | BlackRock, Inc. (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Dec 27, 2006 | Nov 10, 2006 |
BTZ vs VYM Performance
BlackRock Credit Allocation Income Trust (BTZ) is a ETF from BlackRock, Inc. (US) and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year BTZ returned +2.43% while VYM returned +24.43%. Year to date, BTZ is up 1.34% versus a gain of 16.78% for VYM.
Over three years, BTZ compounded at +10.68% per year against +18.60% for VYM; over five years the annualized figures are +0.92% and +12.30% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, VYM has the edge at +7.11% annualized vs -1.98%. 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 14.6% for VYM. 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 -58.8% for VYM. 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 0.63. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BTZ charges 1.12% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $112 vs $4 annually, a gap of $108 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BTZ currently yields 9.18% against 2.86% for VYM.
Holdings Overlap
BTZ and VYM share 0 holdings out of 1699 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 VYM?
BTZ has an expense ratio of 1.12% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $108 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BTZ or VYM?
Over the past year BTZ returned +2.43% vs +24.43% for VYM, so VYM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), BTZ annualized -1.98% vs +7.11% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BTZ or VYM?
BTZ has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 14.6% for VYM. Worst drawdown: BTZ -80.2% vs VYM -58.8%.
Should I hold both BTZ and VYM?
BTZ and VYM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.63, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BTZ and VYM?
BTZ and VYM share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 1699 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BTZ or VYM?
BTZ yields 9.18% while VYM yields 2.86%, 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.