IBMP vs IVV
Ishares Ibonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IBMP offers more diversification with 1,824 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IBMP | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $659M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.51% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 1,824 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | -0.12% | +14.29% | |
| 1Y Return | +0.58% | +21.79% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +2.46% | +22.19% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +0.21% | +13.28% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 4.4% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -15.2% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Apr 9, 2019 | May 15, 2000 |
IBMP vs IVV Performance
Ishares Ibonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMP) 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 IBMP returned +0.58% while IVV returned +21.79%. Year to date, IBMP is down 0.12% versus a gain of 14.29% for IVV.
Over three years, IBMP compounded at +2.46% per year against +22.19% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +0.21% and +13.28% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.06% annualized vs +1.66%. 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 4.4% for IBMP. 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 -15.2% for IBMP 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 0.44. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IBMP charges 0.18% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $3 annually, a gap of $15 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IBMP currently yields 2.51% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
IBMP and IVV share 0 holdings out of 817 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, IBMP or IVV?
IBMP has an expense ratio of 0.18% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $15 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IBMP or IVV?
Over the past year IBMP returned +0.58% vs +21.79% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), IBMP annualized +1.66% vs +7.06% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IBMP or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 4.4% for IBMP. Worst drawdown: IBMP -15.2% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both IBMP and IVV?
IBMP and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.44, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IBMP and IVV?
IBMP and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 817 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IBMP or IVV?
IBMP yields 2.51% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IBMP 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.