IBMT vs IVV
iShares iBonds Dec 2031 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. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IBMT | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $128M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.39% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 927 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | -1.39% | +13.43% | |
| 1Y Return | +0.91% | +22.61% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +21.47% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.26% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 3.8% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -3.7% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 25, 2025 | May 15, 2000 |
IBMT vs IVV Performance
iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMT) 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 IBMT returned +0.91% while IVV returned +22.61%. Year to date, IBMT is down 1.39% versus a gain of 13.43% for IVV.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 3.8% for IBMT. 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 -3.7% for IBMT 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 0.52. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IBMT 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, IBMT currently yields 2.39% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
IBMT and IVV share 0 holdings out of 668 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, IBMT or IVV?
IBMT 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, IBMT or IVV?
Over the past year IBMT returned +0.91% vs +22.61% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), IBMT annualized +4.05% vs +7.03% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IBMT or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 3.8% for IBMT. Worst drawdown: IBMT -3.7% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both IBMT and IVV?
IBMT and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.52, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IBMT and IVV?
IBMT and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 668 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IBMT or IVV?
IBMT yields 2.39% while IVV yields 1.09%, so IBMT 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.