IVV vs TBIL

IVV vs TBIL

Which is better, IVV or TBIL?

Large Cap Blend against Short Term High Quality.

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window.

Lower Fees: IVVHigher Returns: IVV

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

MetricIVVTBIL
Expense Ratio0.03%Best0.15%
AUM$876.4B$7.2B
Dividend Yield1.06%4.00%
Holdings50810
YTD Return+12.39%Best+2.53%
1Y Return+16.61%Best+3.72%
3Y Return (annualized)+21.38%Best+4.48%
5Y Return (annualized)+13.51%-
Volatility (annualized)14.2%0.3%Best
Max Drawdown-18.8%-0.1%Best
$10,000 over 4.1 years$18,929Best$11,968
Fund FamilyiShares by BlackRock (US)US Benchmark Series
CategoryEquityFixed Income
StyleLarge Cap BlendShort Term High Quality
InceptionMay 15, 2000Aug 8, 2022

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.1 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 18, 2022 to Sep 18, 2026 (4.1 years).

IVV vs TBIL 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 4.1 years both funds cover.

IVV vs TBIL Performance

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and F/m US Treasury 3 Month Bill ETF (TBIL) is an ETF from US Benchmark Series. Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% while TBIL returned +3.72%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.39% versus a gain of 2.53% for TBIL.

Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.38% per year against +4.48% for TBIL. Across the full 4-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +16.84% annualized vs +4.48%.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.2% compared with 0.3% for TBIL. 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 -0.1% for TBIL. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.02. They move largely independently of each other.

Fees and Cost Over Time

IVV charges 0.03% per year while TBIL charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $15 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 4.00% for TBIL.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of IVV and TBIL you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

IVVTBIL

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IVV or TBIL?

IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while TBIL charges 0.15%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $12 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, IVV or TBIL?

Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% vs +3.72% for TBIL, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IVV annualized +16.84% vs +4.48% for TBIL. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, IVV or TBIL?

IVV has been the more volatile fund at 14.2% annualized versus 0.3% for TBIL. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs TBIL -0.1%.

Should I hold both IVV and TBIL?

IVV and TBIL have a monthly-return correlation of 0.02, 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, IVV or TBIL?

IVV yields 1.06% while TBIL yields 4.00%, so TBIL currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is TBIL better than IVV?

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.