FEBM vs IVV
FT Vest US Equity Max Buffer ETF - February 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 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FEBM | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.85% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $48M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 5 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +3.83% | +13.43% | |
| 1Y Return | +6.75% | +22.61% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +21.47% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.26% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 2.5% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -2.6% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Alternative | Equity | |
| Inception | Feb 21, 2025 | May 15, 2000 |
FEBM vs IVV Performance
FT Vest US Equity Max Buffer ETF - February (FEBM) is a ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FEBM returned +6.75% while IVV returned +22.61%. Year to date, FEBM is up 3.83% versus a gain of 13.43% for IVV.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 2.5% for FEBM. 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 -2.6% for FEBM 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 0.92. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FEBM charges 0.85% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $85 vs $3 annually, a gap of $82 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FEBM currently yields 0.00% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
FEBM 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, FEBM or IVV?
FEBM has an expense ratio of 0.85% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $82 per year of difference.
Which performed better, FEBM or IVV?
Over the past year FEBM returned +6.75% vs +22.61% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), FEBM annualized +6.44% vs +7.03% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, FEBM or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 2.5% for FEBM. Worst drawdown: FEBM -2.6% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both FEBM and IVV?
FEBM and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between FEBM and IVV?
FEBM and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 506 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, FEBM or IVV?
FEBM yields 0.00% 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.