IBBQ vs VTI
Invesco Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, IBBQ or VTI?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IBBQ led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 44.4%.
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 | IBBQ | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.19% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $103M | $690.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.72% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 260 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +23.58%Best | +14.14% |
| 1Y Return | +39.46%Best | +16.22% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.94% | +22.93%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.19% | +12.76%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.2% | 15.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -37.9% | -25.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,823 | $18,230Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 44.4% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 11, 2021 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 11, 2021 to Oct 5, 2026 (5.3 years).
IBBQ vs VTI 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 5.3 years both funds cover.
IBBQ vs VTI Performance
Invesco Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBBQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IBBQ returned +39.46% while VTI returned +16.22%. Year to date, IBBQ is up 23.58% versus a gain of 14.14% for VTI.
Over three years, IBBQ compounded at +21.94% per year against +22.93% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +8.19% and +12.76% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IBBQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.2% compared with 15.6% for VTI. 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 -37.9% for IBBQ and -25.4% for VTI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.57. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IBBQ charges 0.19% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $19 vs $3 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IBBQ currently yields 0.72% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
88.7% of IBBQ's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 2.9% of VTI's money is in holdings IBBQ also owns.
Most of IBBQ is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
The two holdings books were reported 46 days apart, IBBQ as of Sep 15, 2026 and VTI as of Jul 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
208 positions in common, counted across the 252 positions we hold weights for in IBBQ and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 260 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,099 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for IBBQ (94.5% of the fund), and 15 for IBBQ that do not appear in VTI (2.6%).
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.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in IBBQ | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| VRTXNvaesrtex Pharmaceuticals Inc | 8.15% | 0.17% | 7.98% |
| AMGNAmgen Inc. | 7.93% | 0.29% | 7.64% |
| GILDGilead Sciences | 7.57% | 0.22% | 7.35% |
| REGNRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 5.43% | 0.11% | 5.32% |
| MRNAModerna therapeutics | 3.86% | 0.03% | 3.83% |
| RVMDRevolution Medicines Inc | 2.92% | 0.05% | 2.87% |
| ALNYAlnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc. | 2.24% | 0.04% | 2.20% |
| BIIBBiogen Inc. Com | 2.16% | 0.04% | 2.12% |
| ILMNIllumina, Inc. | 2.11% | 0.04% | 2.07% |
| ROIV:BMRoivant Sciences Ltd. Common Shares | 1.98% | 0.02% | 1.96% |
88.7% of IBBQ is already inside VTI.
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, IBBQ or VTI?
IBBQ has an expense ratio of 0.19% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $16 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IBBQ or VTI?
Over the past year IBBQ returned +39.46% vs +16.22% for VTI, so IBBQ leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IBBQ or VTI?
IBBQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.2% annualized versus 15.6% for VTI. Worst drawdown: IBBQ -37.9% vs VTI -25.4%.
Should I hold both IBBQ and VTI?
IBBQ and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.57, 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 IBBQ and VTI?
88.7% of IBBQ's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 2.9% of VTI's is in holdings IBBQ also owns. They hold 208 positions in common, counted across the 252 positions we hold weights for in IBBQ and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, IBBQ or VTI?
IBBQ yields 0.72% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than IBBQ?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IBBQ led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 44.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.