FBT vs IVV
First Trust NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index Fund vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, FBT or IVV?
Mid Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FBT led over 1Y and the full window, IVV over 3Y and 5Y. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.0%.
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 | FBT | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.55% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $2.9B | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 62 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +26.26%Best | +11.57% |
| 1Y Return | +50.41%Best | +17.57% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.14% | +20.71%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.97% | +12.80%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 22.9% | 15.3%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -40.5%Best | -56.5% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,365 | $18,262Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.0% | 37.9%Best |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 19, 2006 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 23, 2006 to Sep 10, 2026 (20.2 years).
FBT 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 20.2 years both funds cover.
FBT vs IVV Performance
First Trust NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index Fund (FBT) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FBT returned +50.41% while IVV returned +17.57%. Year to date, FBT is up 26.26% versus a gain of 11.57% for IVV.
Over three years, FBT compounded at +20.14% per year against +20.71% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +8.97% and +12.80% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, FBT has the edge at +13.71% annualized vs +9.78%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FBT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.9% compared with 15.3% 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 -40.5% for FBT and -56.5% 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 0.60. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FBT charges 0.55% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $55 vs $3 annually, a gap of $52 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FBT currently yields 0.00% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
20.7% of FBT's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 0.8% of IVV's money is in holdings FBT also owns.
FBT and IVV share little of their money.
6 positions in common, counted across the 30 positions we hold weights for in FBT and 505 in IVV, against full books of 62 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 489 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for FBT (98.5% of the fund), and 19 for FBT that do not appear in IVV (62.2%).
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.
20.7% of FBT 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, FBT or IVV?
FBT has an expense ratio of 0.55% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $52 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FBT or IVV?
Over the past year FBT returned +50.41% vs +17.57% for IVV, so FBT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), FBT annualized +13.71% vs +9.78% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FBT or IVV?
FBT has been the more volatile fund at 22.9% annualized versus 15.3% for IVV. Worst drawdown: FBT -40.5% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both FBT and IVV?
FBT and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.60, 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 FBT and IVV?
20.7% of FBT's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 0.8% of IVV's is in holdings FBT also owns. They hold 6 positions in common, counted across the 30 positions we hold weights for in FBT and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FBT or IVV?
FBT yields 0.00% while IVV yields 1.06%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than FBT?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FBT led over 1Y and the full window, IVV over 3Y and 5Y. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.