BMED vs VTI
iShares Health Innovation Active ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, BMED or VTI?
All Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. BMED led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 42.3%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BMED | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.55% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $14M | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.24% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 61 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +13.90%Best | +13.02% |
| 1Y Return | +25.38%Best | +16.63% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.61% | +21.97%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.48% | +11.99%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.0% | 15.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -36.4% | -25.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $11,865 | $17,616Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 42.3% | 33.5%Best |
| Fund Family | BlackRock, Inc. (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | All Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 29, 2020 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 1, 2020 to Oct 14, 2026 (6 years).
BMED vs VTI growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 6 years both funds cover.
BMED vs VTI Performance
iShares Health Innovation Active ETF (BMED) is an ETF from BlackRock, Inc. (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year BMED returned +25.38% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, BMED is up 13.90% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.
Over three years, BMED compounded at +15.61% per year against +21.97% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +3.48% and +11.99% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +15.41% annualized vs +5.16%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BMED has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.0% compared with 15.6% for VTI. 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 -36.4% for BMED and -25.4% for VTI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.71. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BMED charges 0.55% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $55 vs $3 annually, a gap of $52 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BMED currently yields 0.24% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
86.9% of BMED's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 4.7% of VTI's money is in holdings BMED also owns.
Most of BMED is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
44 positions in common, counted across the 53 positions we hold weights for in BMED and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 61 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,120 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for BMED (92.9% of the fund), and 1 for BMED that do not appear in VTI (2.5%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in BMED | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 4.73% | 0.61% | 4.12% |
| DHRDanaher Corporation | 5.12% | 0.18% | 4.94% |
| GILDGilead Sciences | 4.96% | 0.25% | 4.71% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 4.12% | 0.87% | 3.25% |
| MRNAModerna therapeutics | 4.89% | 0.07% | 4.82% |
| TMOThermo Fisherscientific Inc. | 4.37% | 0.31% | 4.06% |
| IQVI Q V I A Holdings Inc. | 3.68% | 0.06% | 3.62% |
| WATWaters Corp. | 3.62% | 0.06% | 3.56% |
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 3.14% | 0.49% | 2.65% |
| BIIBBiogen Inc. Com | 3.50% | 0.04% | 3.46% |
86.9% of BMED is already inside VTI.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BMED or VTI?
BMED has an expense ratio of 0.55% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $52 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BMED or VTI?
Over the past year BMED returned +25.38% vs +16.63% for VTI, so BMED leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), BMED annualized +5.16% vs +15.41% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BMED or VTI?
BMED has been the more volatile fund at 17.0% annualized versus 15.6% for VTI. Worst drawdown: BMED -36.4% vs VTI -25.4%.
Should I hold both BMED and VTI?
BMED and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.71, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between BMED and VTI?
86.9% of BMED's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 4.7% of VTI's is in holdings BMED also owns. They hold 44 positions in common, counted across the 53 positions we hold weights for in BMED and 3,441 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, BMED or VTI?
BMED yields 0.24% while VTI yields 1.06%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than BMED?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. BMED led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 42.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.