IVV vs PBMR
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF - March
Which is better, IVV or PBMR?
Large Cap Blend against Multi Alternative.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96.
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 | IVV | PBMR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.50% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $36M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 508 | 8 |
| YTD Return | +11.57%Best | +6.79% |
| 1Y Return | +17.57%Best | +9.92% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.71% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.80% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.2% | 4.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -18.8% | -7.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.5 years | $15,183Best | $12,911 |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | PGIM Investments |
| Category | Equity | Alternative |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Feb 29, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.5 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 1, 2024 to Sep 10, 2026 (2.5 years).
IVV vs PBMR 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 2.5 years both funds cover.
IVV vs PBMR Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and PGIM S&P 500 Buffer 20 ETF - March (PBMR) is an ETF from PGIM Investments. Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while PBMR returned +9.92%. Year to date, IVV is up 11.57% versus a gain of 6.79% for PBMR.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.2% compared with 4.5% for PBMR. 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 -18.8% for IVV and -7.6% for PBMR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while PBMR charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $50 annually, a gap of $47 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.00% for PBMR.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IVV and PBMR 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, IVV or PBMR?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while PBMR charges 0.50%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $47 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or PBMR?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs +9.92% for PBMR, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or PBMR?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 12.2% annualized versus 4.5% for PBMR. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs PBMR -7.6%.
Should I hold both IVV and PBMR?
IVV and PBMR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or PBMR?
IVV yields 1.06% while PBMR yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PBMR better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.