CBON vs IVV
VanEck China Bond ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CBON | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $26M | $886.7B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.52% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 37 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +6.15% | +12.64% | |
| 1Y Return | +9.29% | +20.92% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +5.79% | +21.07% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +2.09% | +12.62% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 5.3% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -15.5% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | VanEck | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Nov 10, 2014 | May 15, 2000 |
CBON vs IVV Performance
VanEck China Bond ETF (CBON) is a ETF from VanEck and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year CBON returned +9.29% while IVV returned +20.92%. Year to date, CBON is up 6.15% versus a gain of 12.64% for IVV.
Over three years, CBON compounded at +5.79% per year against +21.07% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +2.09% and +12.62% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +6.98% annualized vs +0.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 5.3% for CBON. 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 -15.5% for CBON 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 0.35. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CBON charges 0.50% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $3 annually, a gap of $47 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CBON currently yields 1.52% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
CBON and IVV share 0 holdings out of 506 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, CBON or IVV?
CBON has an expense ratio of 0.50% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $47 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CBON or IVV?
Over the past year CBON returned +9.29% vs +20.92% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), CBON annualized +0.73% vs +6.98% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CBON or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 5.3% for CBON. Worst drawdown: CBON -15.5% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both CBON and IVV?
CBON and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.35, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CBON and IVV?
CBON and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 506 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CBON or IVV?
CBON yields 1.52% while IVV yields 1.10%, so CBON 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.