IVV vs WABF
IVV vs WABF
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Western Asset Bond 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 | IVV | WABF | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.35% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $16M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 5.01% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 449 | |
| YTD Return | +13.31% | -0.49% | |
| 1Y Return | +24.00% | +2.04% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.16% | - | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.34% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 6.5% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -5.4% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Sep 19, 2023 |
IVV vs WABF Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Western Asset Bond ETF (WABF) is a ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US). Over the past year IVV returned +24.00% while WABF returned +2.04%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.31% versus a loss of 0.49% for WABF.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 6.5% for WABF. 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 -5.4% for WABF. 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 0.54. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while WABF charges 0.35%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $35 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 5.01% for WABF.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and WABF share 0 holdings out of 794 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, IVV or WABF?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while WABF charges 0.35%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $32 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or WABF?
Over the past year IVV returned +24.00% vs +2.04% for WABF, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (3 years), IVV annualized +7.03% vs +5.33% for WABF. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or WABF?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 6.5% for WABF. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs WABF -5.4%.
Should I hold both IVV and WABF?
IVV and WABF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.54, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and WABF?
IVV and WABF share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 794 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or WABF?
IVV yields 1.09% while WABF yields 5.01%, so WABF 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.