IBAT vs. IVV

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) and IVV (iShares Core S&P 500 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBAT is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while IVV is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBAT returned 63.73% vs 21.55% for IVV. Their 0.66 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. IBAT charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for IVV.

Performance

IBAT vs. IVV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBAT achieves a 32.65% return, which is significantly higher than IVV's 10.13% return.

IBAT

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: -12.41%
• 6M: 17.70%
• YTD: 32.65%
• 1Y: 63.73%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.39%

IVV

• 1D: 0.69%
• 1M: 0.25%
• 6M: 8.53%
• YTD: 10.13%
• 1Y: 21.55%
• 3Y*: 19.40%
• 5Y*: 12.82%
• 10Y*: 15.11%
• ALL TIME*: 8.45%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	$1.10M	$1.47M	$2.33M
IVV iShares Core S&P 500 ETF	$3.36B	$3.31B	$5.91B

IBAT vs. IVV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	32.65%	32.09%	-13.29%
IVV iShares Core S&P 500 ETF	10.13%	17.85%	13.73%

Correlation

The correlation between IBAT and IVV is 0.70, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.66

The correlation between IBAT and IVV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

IBAT vs. IVV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IBAT	IVV
Industrials	44.1%	7.9%
Basic Materials	32.2%	1.8%
Technology	21.1%	37.2%
Consumer Cyclical	2.2%	8.9%
Energy	1.8%	3.3%
Utilities	0.3%	2.6%
Communication Services	-	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.8%
Financial Services	-	12.5%
Healthcare	-	9.4%
Real Estate	-	1.9%

Return for Risk

IBAT vs. IVV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

IBAT

IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 76
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 78
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 71

IVV

IVV Risk / Return Rank: 67
IVV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
IVV Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
IVV Omega Ratio Rank: 65
IVV Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
IVV Martin Ratio Rank: 76

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IBAT vs. IVV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	IBAT	IVV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.98	1.53	+0.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.45	2.12	+0.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.27	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.42	2.21	+0.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.73	9.43	-0.70

IBAT vs. IVV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.98, which is comparable to the IVV Sharpe Ratio of 1.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBAT and IVV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IBAT vs. IVV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBAT drawdown since its inception was -28.26%, smaller than the maximum IVV drawdown of -55.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBAT and IVV.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBAT	IVV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.26%	-55.25%	+26.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.85%	-8.89%	-16.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.75%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.53%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-33.90%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-20.73%	-1.41%	-19.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.03%	-10.72%	+2.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.15%	2.09%	+5.06%

Volatility

IBAT vs. IVV - Volatility Comparison

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) has a higher volatility of 12.10% compared to iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) at 3.52%. This indicates that IBAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IVV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBAT	IVV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.10%	3.52%	+8.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.99%	10.18%	+16.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.59%	12.89%	+18.70%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.08%	17.01%	+9.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.08%	18.06%	+8.02%

IBAT vs. IVV - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBAT has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is higher than IVV's 0.03% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBAT vs. IVV - Dividend Comparison

IBAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.80%, less than IVV's 1.09% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.80%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IVV iShares Core S&P 500 ETF	1.09%	1.17%	1.30%	1.44%	1.66%	1.20%	1.57%	1.85%	2.21%	1.75%	2.01%	2.27%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBAT and IVV in my portfolio?

IBAT and IVV have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBAT or IVV?

IBAT has higher volatility (12.10%) compared to IVV (3.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBAT dropped -28.26% vs IVV's -55.25%.

Which ETF is better, IBAT or IVV?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 63.73% vs 21.55% for IVV. On fees, IVV is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, IVV has been the lower-risk option at 3.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBAT or IVV?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 63.73% return vs 21.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBAT or IVV?

IVV is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for IBAT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBAT or IVV?

IVV has the higher dividend yield at 1.09%, compared with 0.80% for IBAT.

What is the main difference between IBAT and IVV?

IBAT is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while IVV is S&P 500. IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while IVV tracks S&P 500 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBAT and 0.03% for IVV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.98 vs 1.53), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.