EBND vs IVV
State Street SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. EBND offers more diversification with 653 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | EBND | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.30% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $2.3B | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 5.84% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 653 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +1.88% | +12.96% | |
| 1Y Return | +5.10% | +20.70% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +6.64% | +22.10% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +1.08% | +13.40% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 10.1% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -41.0% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Feb 23, 2011 | May 15, 2000 |
EBND vs IVV Performance
State Street SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF (EBND) is a ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year EBND returned +5.10% while IVV returned +20.70%. Year to date, EBND is up 1.88% versus a gain of 12.96% for IVV.
Over three years, EBND compounded at +6.64% per year against +22.10% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +1.08% and +13.40% respectively. Across the full 16-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.01% annualized vs -0.56%. 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 10.1% for EBND. 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 -41.0% for EBND 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 0.56. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EBND charges 0.30% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $30 vs $3 annually, a gap of $27 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EBND currently yields 5.84% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
EBND and IVV share 0 holdings out of 507 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, EBND or IVV?
EBND has an expense ratio of 0.30% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $27 per year of difference.
Which performed better, EBND or IVV?
Over the past year EBND returned +5.10% vs +20.70% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (16 years), EBND annualized -0.56% vs +7.01% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, EBND or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 10.1% for EBND. Worst drawdown: EBND -41.0% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both EBND and IVV?
EBND and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.56, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between EBND and IVV?
EBND and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 507 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, EBND or IVV?
EBND yields 5.84% while IVV yields 1.10%, so EBND 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.