IUSV vs. BGIG

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

IUSV (iShares Core S&P U.S. Value ETF) and BGIG (Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. IUSV is passively managed, while BGIG is actively managed. Over the past year, IUSV returned 21.39% vs 21.10% for BGIG. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IUSV charges 0.04%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for BGIG.

Performance

IUSV vs. BGIG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Core S&P U.S. Value ETF (IUSV) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IUSV achieves a 8.10% return, which is significantly lower than BGIG's 10.40% return.

IUSV

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: 0.07%
• YTD: 8.10%
• 6M: 7.41%
• 1Y: 21.39%
• 3Y*: 15.27%
• 5Y*: 11.26%
• 10Y*: 12.35%

BGIG

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: 0.23%
• YTD: 10.40%
• 6M: 10.18%
• 1Y: 21.10%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IUSV vs. BGIG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
IUSV iShares Core S&P U.S. Value ETF	8.10%	12.85%	12.18%	7.87%
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	10.40%	12.49%	16.84%	3.57%

Correlation

The correlation between IUSV and BGIG is 0.80, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2023	0.84

The correlation between IUSV and BGIG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

IUSV vs. BGIG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IUSV	BGIG
Technology	21.7%	25.7%
Financial Services	14.9%	14.4%
Consumer Cyclical	11.2%	4.8%
Healthcare	11.1%	15.2%
Industrials	10.9%	10.3%
Consumer Defensive	8.7%	6.8%
Energy	7.0%	10.2%
Utilities	4.3%	7.2%
Real Estate	3.7%	3.8%
Basic Materials	3.5%	0.6%
Communication Services	3.0%	0.8%

Return for Risk

IUSV vs. BGIG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

IUSV

IUSV Risk / Return Rank: 68
IUSV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
IUSV Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
IUSV Omega Ratio Rank: 66
IUSV Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
IUSV Martin Ratio Rank: 71

BGIG

BGIG Risk / Return Rank: 76
BGIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
BGIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
BGIG Omega Ratio Rank: 74
BGIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
BGIG Martin Ratio Rank: 76

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

IUSV vs. BGIG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core S&P U.S. Value ETF (IUSV) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). 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.

	IUSV	BGIG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.13	2.34	-0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.97	3.34	-0.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.42	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.38	3.65	-0.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.86	14.09	-1.23

IUSV vs. BGIG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IUSV Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is comparable to the BGIG Sharpe Ratio of 2.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IUSV and BGIG, 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

IUSV vs. BGIG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IUSV drawdown since its inception was -56.88%, which is greater than BGIG's maximum drawdown of -13.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IUSV and BGIG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IUSV	BGIG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.88%	-13.24%	-43.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.36%	-5.81%	-0.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.76%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.95%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-37.54%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.95%	-0.39%	-0.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.28%	-1.75%	-4.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.67%	1.50%	+0.17%

Volatility

IUSV vs. BGIG - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core S&P U.S. Value ETF (IUSV) has a higher volatility of 3.00% compared to Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) at 2.44%. This indicates that IUSV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BGIG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IUSV	BGIG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.00%	2.44%	+0.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.45%	6.73%	+0.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.12%	9.07%	+1.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.53%	11.91%	+2.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.08%	11.91%	+5.17%

IUSV vs. BGIG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IUSV has a 0.04% expense ratio, which is lower than BGIG's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

IUSV vs. BGIG - Dividend Comparison

IUSV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.70%, less than BGIG's 1.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	1.74%	1.89%	2.02%	0.78%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IUSV iShares Core S&P U.S. Value ETF	1.70%	1.78%	2.15%	1.75%	2.22%	1.87%	2.40%	2.19%	2.67%	1.93%	4.44%	7.63%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IUSV and BGIG in my portfolio?

IUSV and BGIG have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IUSV or BGIG?

IUSV has higher volatility (3.00%) compared to BGIG (2.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IUSV dropped -56.88% vs BGIG's -13.24%.

Which ETF is better, IUSV or BGIG?

On 1-year performance, IUSV leads with 21.39% vs 21.10% for BGIG. On fees, IUSV is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, BGIG has been the lower-risk option at 2.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IUSV or BGIG?

Over the 1-year period, IUSV has performed better with a 21.39% return vs 21.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IUSV or BGIG?

IUSV is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for BGIG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IUSV or BGIG?

BGIG has the higher dividend yield at 1.74%, compared with 1.70% for IUSV.

What is the main difference between IUSV and BGIG?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Bahl & Gaynor. Their fees differ too: 0.04% for IUSV and 0.45% for BGIG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BGIG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.34 vs 2.13), 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.