BUL vs IVV
Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, BUL or IVV?
Mid Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. BUL led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 44.1%.
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 | BUL | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.60% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $143M | $886.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.21% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 51 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +15.30%Best | +13.39% |
| 1Y Return | +20.38%Best | +20.08% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.94% | +21.29%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.86% | +12.88%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.7% | 16.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -37.3% | -33.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,745 | $18,327Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 44.1% | 37.9%Best |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 2, 2019 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 3, 2019 to Sep 4, 2026 (7.3 years).
BUL vs IVV growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 7.3 years both funds cover.
BUL vs IVV Performance
Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF (BUL) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BUL returned +20.38% while IVV returned +20.08%. Year to date, BUL is up 15.30% versus a gain of 13.39% for IVV.
Over three years, BUL compounded at +20.94% per year against +21.29% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +10.86% and +12.88% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +15.19% annualized vs +14.28%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BUL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.7% compared with 16.4% 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 -33.9% 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 0.89. 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 0.21% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
49.8% of BUL's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 1.1% of IVV's money is in holdings BUL also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
12 positions in common, counted across the 50 positions we hold weights for in BUL and 505 in IVV, against full books of 51 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 485 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for BUL (98.3% of the fund), and 37 for BUL that do not appear in IVV (46.7%).
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.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in BUL | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| BKNGBooking Holdings, Inc. | 5.59% | 0.24% | 5.35% |
| UBERUber Technologies Inc | 4.96% | 0.21% | 4.75% |
| HCAHca-the Healthcare Co | 4.91% | 0.10% | 4.81% |
| CCLCarnival Corporation Common Stock | 4.81% | 0.06% | 4.75% |
| NEMNewmont Corp Common | 4.63% | 0.17% | 4.46% |
| EXPEExpedia Group Inc (consumer Discretionary) | 4.66% | 0.06% | 4.60% |
| TPRTapestry Inc. | 3.92% | 0.05% | 3.87% |
| LVSLas Vegas Sands Corp. | 3.79% | 0.02% | 3.77% |
| VRSNVerisign Inc. | 3.39% | 0.04% | 3.35% |
| FSLRFirst Solar, Inc | 3.26% | 0.04% | 3.22% |
49.8% of BUL is already inside IVV.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
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, by $57 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BUL or IVV?
Over the past year BUL returned +20.38% vs +20.08% for IVV, so BUL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), BUL annualized +14.28% vs +15.19% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BUL or IVV?
BUL has been the more volatile fund at 19.7% annualized versus 16.4% for IVV. Worst drawdown: BUL -37.3% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both BUL and IVV?
BUL and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between BUL and IVV?
49.8% of BUL's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 1.1% of IVV's is in holdings BUL also owns. They hold 12 positions in common, counted across the 50 positions we hold weights for in BUL and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, BUL or IVV?
BUL yields 0.21% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than BUL?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. BUL led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 44.1%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.