IBTF vs IVV
iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, IBTF or IVV?
IVV has been ahead.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window.
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 | IBTF | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.07% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $1.4B | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 3.85% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 6 | 508 |
| Volatility (annualized) | 2.7%Best | 17.0% |
| Max Drawdown | -20.8%Best | -28.6% |
| $10,000 over 5.8 years | $10,710 | $24,760Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity |
| Style | - | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Feb 25, 2020 | May 15, 2000 |
Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
The two price series end 284 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. IBTF has data through Dec 15, 2025 and IVV through Sep 25, 2026.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 5.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 28, 2020 to Dec 15, 2025 (5.8 years).
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.0% compared with 2.7% for IBTF. 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 -20.8% for IBTF and -28.6% for IVV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.13. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IBTF charges 0.07% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $7 vs $3 annually, a gap of $4 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IBTF currently yields 3.85% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
At least 0.1% of IVV's money is in holdings IBTF also owns.
Only one direction is shown: for IBTF, our book for it lists positions totalling 161.4% of the fund, which is what a leveraged book looks like and is not a denominator we can divide by.
We cannot see either book well enough to say how much of this pair is duplicated.
The two holdings books were reported 276 days apart, IBTF as of Nov 28, 2025 and IVV as of Aug 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
1 positions in common, counted across the 4 positions we hold weights for in IBTF and 490 in IVV, against full books of 6 and 508.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in IBTF | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| XTSLABlackrock Cash Funds: Treasury, Sl Agency Shares | 38.43% | 0.15% | 38.28% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IBTF and IVV you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IBTF or IVV?
IBTF has an expense ratio of 0.07% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $4 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which is riskier, IBTF or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 17.0% annualized versus 2.7% for IBTF. Worst drawdown: IBTF -20.8% vs IVV -28.6%.
Should I hold both IBTF and IVV?
IBTF and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.13, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, IBTF or IVV?
IBTF yields 3.85% while IVV yields 1.06%, so IBTF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than IBTF?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.