BWG vs IVV
BWG vs IVV
BrandywineGLOBAL Global Income Opportunities Fund Inc 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 | BWG | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 2.66% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $142M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 11.05% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 110 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | -0.22% | +13.80% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.61% | +23.70% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.44% | +21.49% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +1.97% | +13.43% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.5% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -58.8% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 28, 2012 | May 15, 2000 |
BWG vs IVV Performance
BrandywineGLOBAL Global Income Opportunities Fund Inc (BWG) is a ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BWG returned +2.61% while IVV returned +23.70%. Year to date, BWG is down 0.22% versus a gain of 13.80% for IVV.
Over three years, BWG compounded at +10.44% per year against +21.49% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +1.97% and +13.43% respectively. Across the full 14-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.05% annualized vs -2.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BWG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.5% compared with 15.1% for IVV. 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 -58.8% for BWG 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.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BWG charges 2.66% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $266 vs $3 annually, a gap of $263 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BWG currently yields 11.05% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BWG and IVV share 0 holdings out of 574 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, BWG or IVV?
BWG has an expense ratio of 2.66% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $263 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BWG or IVV?
Over the past year BWG returned +2.61% vs +23.70% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (14 years), BWG annualized -2.29% vs +7.05% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BWG or IVV?
BWG has been the more volatile fund at 15.5% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: BWG -58.8% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BWG and IVV?
BWG 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 BWG and IVV?
BWG and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 574 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BWG or IVV?
BWG yields 11.05% while IVV yields 1.09%, so BWG 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.