Screener
BMED vs IGM
iShares Health Innovation Active ETF vs iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
Key differences
- IGM costs 0.16% less per year.
- IGM is significantly larger than BMED — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- BMED follows a active selection strategy; IGM uses index tracking.
- Over the last 3 years, IGM has delivered higher annualized returns.
- IGM has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| BMED | IGM | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.55% | 0.39% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $10M | $9.5B |
| Since | 2020 | 2001 |
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 0.15% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | active selection | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +18.0% | +55.0% |
| CAGR 3Y | +4.9% | +39.3% |
| CAGR 5Y | +0.1% | +21.2% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.16 | 1.38 |
| Volatility 1Y | 14.94% | 20.24% |
| Max drawdown | -36.44% | -40.68% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to BMED and IGM
Explore further