IVV vs WBIF
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. WBIF delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | WBIF | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 1.65% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | $24M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 0.06% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 70 | |
| YTD Return | +12.28% | +18.14% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.94% | +24.08% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.81% | +10.30% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.05% | +3.99% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 12.0% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -20.3% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | WBI Investments | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Aug 25, 2014 |
IVV vs WBIF Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) is a ETF from WBI Investments. Over the past year IVV returned +20.94% while WBIF returned +24.08%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.28% versus a gain of 18.14% for WBIF.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.81% per year against +10.30% for WBIF; over five years the annualized figures are +13.05% and +3.99% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +6.98% annualized vs +4.19%. 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 12.0% for WBIF. 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 -56.5% for IVV and -20.3% for WBIF. 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 0.73. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while WBIF charges 1.65%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $165 annually, a gap of $162 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 0.06% for WBIF.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and WBIF share 43 holdings out of 531 unique holdings combined, representing a 6.4% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or WBIF?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while WBIF charges 1.65%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $162 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or WBIF?
Over the past year IVV returned +20.94% vs +24.08% for WBIF, so WBIF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), IVV annualized +6.98% vs +4.19% for WBIF. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or WBIF?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 12.0% for WBIF. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs WBIF -20.3%.
Should I hold both IVV and WBIF?
IVV and WBIF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.73, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and WBIF?
IVV and WBIF share 43 common holdings with a 6.4% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 531 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or WBIF?
IVV yields 1.10% while WBIF yields 0.06%, so IVV 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.