IBAT vs IVV
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IBAT delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IBAT | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.47% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $71M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.80% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 99 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +36.71% | +12.28% | |
| 1Y Return | +61.53% | +20.94% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +21.81% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.05% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 29.9% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -27.9% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 19, 2024 | May 15, 2000 |
IBAT vs IVV Performance
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) 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 IBAT returned +61.53% while IVV returned +20.94%. Year to date, IBAT is up 36.71% versus a gain of 12.28% for IVV.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IBAT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 29.9% compared with 15.1% 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 -27.9% for IBAT 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 0.64. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IBAT charges 0.47% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $47 vs $3 annually, a gap of $44 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IBAT currently yields 0.80% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
IBAT and IVV share 4 holdings out of 584 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.5% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IBAT or IVV?
IBAT has an expense ratio of 0.47% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $44 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IBAT or IVV?
Over the past year IBAT returned +61.53% vs +20.94% for IVV, so IBAT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), IBAT annualized +22.71% vs +6.98% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IBAT or IVV?
IBAT has been the more volatile fund at 29.9% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IBAT -27.9% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both IBAT and IVV?
IBAT and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.64, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IBAT and IVV?
IBAT and IVV share 4 common holdings with a 0.5% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 584 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IBAT or IVV?
IBAT yields 0.80% while IVV yields 1.10%, 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.