GBF vs IVV
iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. GBF offers more diversification with 3004 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | GBF | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.20% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $128M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 3.77% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 3,311 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | -0.81% | +13.43% | |
| 1Y Return | +1.28% | +22.61% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +3.79% | +21.47% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -0.66% | +13.26% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 4.8% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -20.2% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jan 5, 2007 | May 15, 2000 |
GBF vs IVV Performance
iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year GBF returned +1.28% while IVV returned +22.61%. Year to date, GBF is down 0.81% versus a gain of 13.43% for IVV.
Over three years, GBF compounded at +3.79% per year against +21.47% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are -0.66% and +13.26% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.03% annualized vs +0.90%. 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 4.8% for GBF. 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 -20.2% for GBF 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 0.24. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GBF charges 0.20% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $20 vs $3 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GBF currently yields 3.77% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
GBF and IVV share 4 holdings out of 3505 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.2% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, GBF or IVV?
GBF has an expense ratio of 0.20% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $17 per year of difference.
Which performed better, GBF or IVV?
Over the past year GBF returned +1.28% vs +22.61% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), GBF annualized +0.90% vs +7.03% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, GBF or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 4.8% for GBF. Worst drawdown: GBF -20.2% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both GBF and IVV?
GBF and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.24, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between GBF and IVV?
GBF and IVV share 4 common holdings with a 0.2% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 3505 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, GBF or IVV?
GBF yields 3.77% while IVV yields 1.09%, so GBF 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.