BUL vs IVV
Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. BUL delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BUL | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.60% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $132M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.22% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 51 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +16.41% | +13.43% | |
| 1Y Return | +28.69% | +22.61% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.31% | +21.47% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.40% | +13.26% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.8% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -37.3% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 2, 2019 | May 15, 2000 |
BUL vs IVV Performance
Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF (BUL) is a ETF from Pacer ETFs and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BUL returned +28.69% while IVV returned +22.61%. Year to date, BUL is up 16.41% versus a gain of 13.43% for IVV.
Over three years, BUL compounded at +21.31% per year against +21.47% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +11.40% and +13.26% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, BUL has the edge at +14.56% annualized vs +7.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BUL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.8% 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 -37.3% for BUL 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 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BUL charges 0.60% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $60 vs $3 annually, a gap of $57 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BUL currently yields 0.22% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BUL and IVV share 12 holdings out of 544 unique holdings combined, representing a 1.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BUL or IVV?
BUL has an expense ratio of 0.60% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $57 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BUL or IVV?
Over the past year BUL returned +28.69% vs +22.61% for IVV, so BUL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), BUL annualized +14.56% vs +7.03% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BUL or IVV?
BUL has been the more volatile fund at 19.8% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: BUL -37.3% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BUL and IVV?
BUL and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BUL and IVV?
BUL and IVV share 12 common holdings with a 1.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 544 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BUL or IVV?
BUL yields 0.22% while IVV yields 1.09%, so IVV 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.