BAI vs FTEC: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
BAI and FTEC are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. BAI is iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF, while FTEC is Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF. FTEC is broader by holdings count, with 296 positions versus 56 for BAI. FTEC is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has FTEC ahead on AIQ Score, 48 versus 39.
What is the main difference between BAI and FTEC?
FTEC holds 296 positions to BAI's 56, and 30% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | BAI | FTEC |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 56 | 296 |
| Top-10 concentration | 42.1% | 63.7% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.36% | 0.38% |
| Average volume | 3,656,859 | 272,225 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +22.2% | +27.8% |
| YTD return | +31% | +31.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 44.9% | 25% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -30.9% | -16.4% |
| Beta | 2.70 | 1.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.50 | 0.85 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.72 | 1.33 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 39/100 | 48/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 37/100 | 52/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 14/100 | 60/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF vs Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF
FTEC leads
FTEC leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support FTEC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF
Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FTEC over BAI, 48 versus 39 as of Oct 31, 2026. FTEC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while BAI holds the stronger quality profile. FTEC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor FTEC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. FTEC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF and Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
BAI vs FTEC: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | BAI | FTEC | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.65% | 0.08% | FTEC |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 56 | 296 | FTEC |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 42.1% | 63.7% | BAI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.36% | 0.38% | BAI |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -30.9% | -16.4% | FTEC |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 44.9% | 25% | FTEC |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare BAI and FTEC against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience14 vs 60FTEC +46
- Momentum37 vs 52FTEC +15
- Quality64 vs 55BAI +9
- Value28 vs 32FTEC +4
4 of 4 evidence groups favor FTEC. FTEC’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; BAI keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
FTEC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAI and FTEC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FTEC (Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
BAI (iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 44.6% against 24%.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | BAI | FTEC | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 56 | 296 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,656,859 | 272,225 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 44.9% | 25% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -30.9% | -16.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.50 | 0.85 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.70 | 1.71 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
BAI and FTEC share 29.93% of their weighted exposure across 28 common holdings.
20 holdings are unique to BAI, and 264 holdings are unique to FTEC. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
FTEC is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 63.73% of the fund, against 42.13% for BAI (296 holdings vs 56). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | BAI | FTEC | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 5.31% | 17.69% | 5.31% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.68% | 4.44% | 4.44% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 6.66% | 4.31% | 4.31% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 4.82% | 3.2% | 3.2% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 2.07% | 11.28% | 2.07% |
| INTCINTEL CORPORATION | 2.93% | 1.75% | 1.75% |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 4.2% | 1.49% | 1.49% |
| PANWPALO ALTO NETWORKS | 1.42% | 1.11% | 1.11% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What BAI adds that FTEC doesn’t
| Holding | BAI | FTEC |
|---|---|---|
| TSMTAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING | 4.66% | Not held |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 4.2% | 1.49% |
| LITELUMENTUM HOLDINGS | 3% | 0.31% |
| SNOWSNOWFLAKE | 2.94% | 0.47% |
| SPCXSPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES COR | 2.93% | Not held |
| WDCWESTERN DIGITAL CORP | 2.74% | 0.66% |
What FTEC adds that BAI doesn’t
| Holding | FTEC | BAI |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 17.69% | 5.31% |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 16.43% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 11.28% | 2.07% |
| CSCOCISCO SYSTEMS INC | 1.69% | Not held |
| PLTRPALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC | 1.45% | Not held |
| AMATAPPLIED MATERIALS INC | 1.44% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
BAI vs FTEC: five-year payout growth
FTEC grew its split-adjusted payout at 2.04% a year over 2020-2025. BAI began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | BAI | FTEC |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $0.597 | $0.956 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #120 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor FTEC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FTEC | 39 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | FTEC | Value 28 vs 32 |
| Technicals | FTEC | Price vs 50-day -12.5% vs -4.5%; vs 200-day 3.4% vs 13.2% |
| Risk Resilience | FTEC | Risk Resilience 14 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAI and FTEC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on FTEC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28FTEC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FTEC +9
- 39 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- FTEC +6
- 36 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- FTEC +4
- 52 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- FTEC +7
- 40 vs 47
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only FTEC
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
FTEC leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -7.43%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -4.35%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1BAI closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to FTEC's edge.
- 2BAI's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3FTEC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
FTEC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BAI | FTEC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.7% | 1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.6% | -1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.2% | 8.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.1% | 19.7% |
| Year to date | 31% | 31.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.2% | 27.8% |
Technicals
FTEC has the stronger structure| Metric | BAI | FTEC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.3 | 41.6 |
| ADX (14) | 28 | 24 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.5% | -4.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.4% | 13.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 44.6% | 24% |
Risk
FTEC is the more resilient| Metric | BAI | FTEC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.7 | 1.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.5 | 0.85 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.72 | 1.33 |
| Max drawdown | -30.9% | -16.4% |
| Current drawdown | -19.6% | -4.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.9% | 25% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between BAI and FTEC?
FTEC holds 296 positions to BAI's 56, and 30% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do BAI and FTEC overlap?
BAI and FTEC share 29.93% of their weighted exposure across 28 common holdings. 20 holdings are unique to BAI, and 264 holdings are unique to FTEC. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, BAI or FTEC?
FTEC holds more positions: 296 versus 56 for BAI.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
FTEC has the lower expense ratio, 0.08% a year against 0.65% for BAI.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
BAI, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.36% against 0.38% for FTEC.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
BAI has been more volatile over the past year, at 44.9% annualized against 25% for FTEC.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
FTEC fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -16.4% against -30.9% for BAI.
Compare BAI and FTEC with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.