IBMQ vs IVV
iShares iBonds Dec 2028 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. IBMQ offers more diversification with 2,676 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IBMQ | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $663M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.45% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 2,676 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | -0.23% | +14.29% | |
| 1Y Return | +0.58% | +21.79% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +2.57% | +22.19% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +0.10% | +13.28% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 5.0% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -15.8% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Apr 16, 2019 | May 15, 2000 |
IBMQ vs IVV Performance
iShares iBonds Dec 2028 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMQ) 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 IBMQ returned +0.58% while IVV returned +21.79%. Year to date, IBMQ is down 0.23% versus a gain of 14.29% for IVV.
Over three years, IBMQ compounded at +2.57% per year against +22.19% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +0.10% and +13.28% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.06% annualized vs +1.76%. 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 5.0% for IBMQ. 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 -15.8% for IBMQ 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 0.45. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IBMQ 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, IBMQ currently yields 2.45% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
IBMQ and IVV share 0 holdings out of 812 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, IBMQ or IVV?
IBMQ 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, IBMQ or IVV?
Over the past year IBMQ returned +0.58% vs +21.79% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), IBMQ annualized +1.76% vs +7.06% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IBMQ or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 5.0% for IBMQ. Worst drawdown: IBMQ -15.8% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both IBMQ and IVV?
IBMQ and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.45, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IBMQ and IVV?
IBMQ and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 812 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IBMQ or IVV?
IBMQ yields 2.45% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IBMQ 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.