BAI vs IBB: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
BAI and IBB are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. BAI is iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF, while IBB is iShares Biotechnology ETF. IBB is broader by holdings count, with 247 positions versus 56 for BAI. IBB is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IBB ahead on AIQ Score, 57 versus 39.
What is the main difference between BAI and IBB?
IBB holds 247 positions to BAI's 56, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | BAI | IBB |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 56 | 247 |
| Top-10 concentration | 42.1% | 47.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.36% | 0.16% |
| Average volume | 3,656,859 | 1,638,365 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +22.2% | +39.4% |
| YTD return | +31% | +28.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 44.9% | 22.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -30.9% | -9.7% |
| Beta | 2.70 | 0.80 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.50 | 1.33 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.72 | 2.43 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 39/100 | 57/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 37/100 | 79/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 14/100 | 56/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF vs iShares Biotechnology ETF
IBB leads
IBB leads by 18 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from BAI.
Fragile: 4 of 4 evidence groups support IBB, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF
iShares Biotechnology ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IBB over BAI, 57 versus 39 as of Oct 31, 2026. IBB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while BAI holds the stronger quality profile. IBB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IBB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. IBB lead: Reversed — BAI led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IBB now leads by 18.
Compare iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF and iShares Biotechnology ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
BAI vs IBB: 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 | IBB | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.65% | 0.44% | IBB |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 56 | 247 | IBB |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 42.1% | 47.5% | BAI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.36% | 0.16% | BAI |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -30.9% | -9.7% | IBB |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 44.9% | 22.8% | IBB |
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 IBB 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.
- Momentum37 vs 79IBB +42
- Risk Resilience14 vs 56IBB +42
- Value28 vs 37IBB +9
- Quality64 vs 60BAI +4
4 of 4 evidence groups favor IBB. IBB’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; 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 +7
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
IBB's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAI and IBB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IBB (iShares Biotechnology ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
BAI (iShares A.I. Innovation and Tech Active ETF): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 44.6% against 28.5%.
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 | IBB | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.44% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 56 | 247 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,656,859 | 1,638,365 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 44.9% | 22.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -30.9% | -9.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.50 | 1.33 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.70 | 0.80 | 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 IBB share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
48 holdings are unique to BAI, and 244 holdings are unique to IBB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
IBB is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 47.53% of the fund, against 42.13% for BAI (247 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.
What BAI adds that IBB doesn’t
| Holding | BAI | IBB |
|---|---|---|
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 6.66% | Not held |
| NVDANVIDIA | 5.31% | Not held |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 4.82% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.68% | Not held |
| TSMTAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING | 4.66% | Not held |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 4.2% | Not held |
What IBB adds that BAI doesn’t
| Holding | IBB | BAI |
|---|---|---|
| VRTXVERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS | 7.94% | Not held |
| AMGNAMGEN INC | 7.92% | Not held |
| GILDGILEAD SCIENCES | 7.38% | Not held |
| REGNREGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS | 5.95% | Not held |
| ARGXARGENX SE ADR | 3.8% | Not held |
| MRNAMODERNA | 3.6% | 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 IBB: five-year payout growth
IBB grew its split-adjusted payout at 4.54% a year over 2020-2025. BAI began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. IBB: The 2020 payout was 22.3% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | BAI | IBB |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $0.597 | $0.387 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #101 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 IBB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IBB | 39 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IBB | Value 28 vs 37 |
| Technicals | IBB | Price vs 50-day -12.5% vs 4.5%; vs 200-day 3.4% vs 17.4% |
| Risk Resilience | IBB | Risk Resilience 14 vs 56 |
| 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 IBB and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 18 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 IBB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28IBB lead: Reversed — BAI led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IBB now leads by 18.
- Today
- IBB +18
- 39 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- IBB +17
- 36 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- BAI +3
- 52 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- IBB +16
- 40 vs 56
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 9 when IBB moved ahead of BAI.
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
Only BAI
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only IBB
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
IBB 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 -0.11%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBB's edge.
- 2BAI's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3IBB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
IBB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BAI | IBB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.7% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.6% | 2.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.2% | 13.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.1% | 30.8% |
| Year to date | 31% | 28.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.2% | 39.4% |
Technicals
IBB has the stronger structure| Metric | BAI | IBB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.3 | 66.8 |
| ADX (14) | 28 | 11.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.5% | 4.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.4% | 17.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 44.6% | 28.5% |
Risk
IBB is the more resilient| Metric | BAI | IBB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.7 | 0.8 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.5 | 1.33 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.72 | 2.43 |
| Max drawdown | -30.9% | -9.7% |
| Current drawdown | -19.6% | -0.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.9% | 22.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between BAI and IBB?
IBB holds 247 positions to BAI's 56, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do BAI and IBB overlap?
BAI and IBB share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 48 holdings are unique to BAI, and 244 holdings are unique to IBB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, BAI or IBB?
IBB holds more positions: 247 versus 56 for BAI.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IBB has the lower expense ratio, 0.44% 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 0.16% for IBB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
BAI has been more volatile over the past year, at 44.9% annualized against 22.8% for IBB.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IBB fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -9.7% against -30.9% for BAI.
Compare BAI and IBB 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.