IBLC vs VTI
iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, IBLC or VTI?
Multi Alternative against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IBLC led over 3Y and the full window, VTI over 1Y. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 65.5%.
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 | IBLC | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.47% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $84M | $690.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 5.58% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 51 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +4.11% | +13.35%Best |
| 1Y Return | -16.82% | +15.92%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +49.00%Best | +23.41% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.83% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 66.0% | 15.3%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -62.5% | -19.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 4.4 years | $21,411Best | $19,105 |
| Top 10 Weight | 65.5% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 25, 2022 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.4 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 27, 2022 to Oct 2, 2026 (4.4 years).
IBLC 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 4.4 years both funds cover.
IBLC vs VTI Performance
iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF (IBLC) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IBLC returned -16.82% while VTI returned +15.92%. Year to date, IBLC is up 4.11% versus a gain of 13.35% for VTI.
Over three years, IBLC compounded at +49.00% per year against +23.41% for VTI. Across the full 4-year window we track, IBLC has the edge at +18.89% annualized vs +15.85%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IBLC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 66.0% compared with 15.3% 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 -62.5% for IBLC and -19.3% 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 0.75. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IBLC charges 0.47% per year while VTI 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, IBLC currently yields 5.58% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
75.6% of IBLC's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 8.7% of VTI's money is in holdings IBLC also owns.
Most of IBLC is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
22 positions in common, counted across the 41 positions we hold weights for in IBLC and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 51 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,133 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for IBLC (88.7% of the fund), and 9 for IBLC that do not appear in VTI (7.8%).
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 IBLC | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| COINCoinbase Globa-A | 14.29% | 0.04% | 14.25% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 4.41% | 6.40% | 1.99% |
| CRCLCircle Internet Group In | 9.02% | 0.01% | 9.01% |
| BMNRBitmine Immersion Technologi | 7.56% | 0.01% | 7.55% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 4.59% | 1.08% | 3.51% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 4.80% | 0.63% | 4.17% |
| RIOTRiot Platforms, Inc. | 3.98% | 0.01% | 3.97% |
| IBMInternational Business Machines Corp. | 3.54% | 0.29% | 3.25% |
| APLDApplied Digital Corp | 3.65% | 0.01% | 3.64% |
| WULFTerawulf Inc | 3.06% | 0.01% | 3.05% |
75.6% of IBLC 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, IBLC or VTI?
IBLC has an expense ratio of 0.47% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $44 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IBLC or VTI?
Over the past year IBLC returned -16.82% vs +15.92% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IBLC annualized +18.89% vs +15.85% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IBLC or VTI?
IBLC has been the more volatile fund at 66.0% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: IBLC -62.5% vs VTI -19.3%.
Should I hold both IBLC and VTI?
IBLC and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.75, 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 IBLC and VTI?
75.6% of IBLC's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 8.7% of VTI's is in holdings IBLC also owns. They hold 22 positions in common, counted across the 41 positions we hold weights for in IBLC and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, IBLC or VTI?
IBLC yields 5.58% while VTI yields 1.03%, so IBLC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than IBLC?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IBLC led over 3Y and the full window, VTI over 1Y. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 65.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.