BGT vs IVV
BGT vs IVV
BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BGT | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 2.10% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $331M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 12.94% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 485 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +3.47% | +13.52% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.41% | +23.63% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +9.10% | +21.26% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.75% | +13.52% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.1% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -64.1% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | BlackRock, Inc. (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Aug 30, 2004 | May 15, 2000 |
BGT vs IVV Performance
BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust (BGT) is a ETF from BlackRock, Inc. (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BGT returned -2.41% while IVV returned +23.63%. Year to date, BGT is up 3.47% versus a gain of 13.52% for IVV.
Over three years, BGT compounded at +9.10% per year against +21.26% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +6.75% and +13.52% respectively. Across the full 22-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.04% annualized vs -0.34%. 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 14.1% for BGT. 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 -64.1% for BGT 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 0.59. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BGT charges 2.10% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $210 vs $3 annually, a gap of $207 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BGT currently yields 12.94% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BGT and IVV share 0 holdings out of 738 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BGT or IVV?
BGT has an expense ratio of 2.10% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $207 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BGT or IVV?
Over the past year BGT returned -2.41% vs +23.63% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (22 years), BGT annualized -0.34% vs +7.04% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BGT or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 14.1% for BGT. Worst drawdown: BGT -64.1% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BGT and IVV?
BGT and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.59, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BGT and IVV?
BGT and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 738 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BGT or IVV?
BGT yields 12.94% while IVV yields 1.09%, so BGT 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.