Screener
BMED vs IWB
iShares Health Innovation Active ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 ETF
Key differences
- IWB costs 0.40% less per year.
- IWB is significantly larger than BMED — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- BMED follows a active selection strategy; IWB uses index tracking.
- Over the last 3 years, IWB has delivered higher annualized returns.
- IWB has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| BMED | IWB | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.55% | 0.15% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $10M | $46.2B |
| Since | 2020 | 2000 |
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 0.96% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | active selection | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +18.7% | +29.9% |
| CAGR 3Y | +4.8% | +22.7% |
| CAGR 5Y | +0.1% | +13.5% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.16 | 1.21 |
| Volatility 1Y | 14.93% | 12.07% |
| Max drawdown | -36.44% | -34.60% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to BMED and IWB
Explore further