BGB vs IVV
BGB vs IVV
Blackstone Strategic Credit 2027 Term Fund vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BGB | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | - | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $524M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 8.14% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 616 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | -0.41% | +13.80% | |
| 1Y Return | -1.70% | +23.70% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +9.57% | +21.49% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +4.26% | +13.43% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 11.8% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -59.1% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | The Blackstone Group Inc | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 26, 2012 | May 15, 2000 |
BGB vs IVV Performance
Blackstone Strategic Credit 2027 Term Fund (BGB) is a ETF from The Blackstone Group Inc and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BGB returned -1.70% while IVV returned +23.70%. Year to date, BGB is down 0.41% versus a gain of 13.80% for IVV.
Over three years, BGB compounded at +9.57% per year against +21.49% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +4.26% and +13.43% respectively. Across the full 14-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.05% annualized vs -0.85%. 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 11.8% for BGB. 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 -59.1% for BGB 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 0.66. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Holdings Overlap
BGB and IVV share 0 holdings out of 864 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which performed better, BGB or IVV?
Over the past year BGB returned -1.70% vs +23.70% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (14 years), BGB annualized -0.85% vs +7.05% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BGB or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 11.8% for BGB. Worst drawdown: BGB -59.1% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BGB and IVV?
BGB and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.66, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BGB and IVV?
BGB and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 864 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BGB or IVV?
BGB yields 8.14% while IVV yields 1.09%, so BGB 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.