BINC vs BIV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
BINC and BIV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. BINC is iShares Flexible Income Active ETF, while BIV is Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond ETF. BINC is broader by holdings count, with 4,543 positions versus 2,331 for BIV. BIV has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has BIV ahead on AIQ Score, 58 versus 50.
What is the main difference between BINC and BIV?
BINC and BIV have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | BINC | BIV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.52% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 4,543 | 2,331 |
| Top-10 concentration | 19.8% | 21.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 6.04% | 4.49% |
| Average volume | 2,068,052 | 1,764,029 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -4.9% | -6.8% |
| YTD return | -4.1% | -5.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 3% | 4.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -5.5% | -8.2% |
| Beta | 0.12 | 0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.93 | -2.42 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.35 | -3.39 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 50/100 | 58/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 32/100 | 55/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 81/100 | 92/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Flexible Income Active ETF vs Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond ETF
BIV leads
BIV leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support BIV, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Flexible Income Active ETF
Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BIV over BINC, 58 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. BIV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. BIV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BIV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. BIV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Flexible Income Active ETF and Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
BINC vs BIV: 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 | BINC | BIV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.52% | 0.03% | BIV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 4,543 | 2,331 | BINC |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 19.8% | 21.1% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 6.04% | 4.49% | BINC |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -5.5% | -8.2% | BINC |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 3% | 4.4% | BINC |
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 BINC and BIV 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.
- Momentum32 vs 55BIV +23
- Risk Resilience81 vs 92BIV +11
- Quality64 vs 66Even
- Value36 vs 36Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor BIV. BIV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
BIV's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BINC and BIV both carry a full feed there.
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 | BINC | BIV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.52% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 4,543 | 2,331 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,068,052 | 1,764,029 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 3% | 4.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -5.5% | -8.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.93 | -2.42 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.12 | 0.13 | 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
BINC and BIV share 0.18% of their weighted exposure across 7 common holdings.
3,958 holdings are unique to BINC, and 2,318 holdings are unique to BIV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
BIV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 21.08% of the fund, against 19.82% for BINC (2,331 holdings vs 4,543). 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 | BINC | BIV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| MEXICO (UNITED MEXICAN STATES) (GO 5.38% 03/22/2033 (MEX) | 0.07% | 0.07% | 0.07% |
| PANAMA REPUBLIC OF (GOVERNMENT) 2.25% 09/29/2032 (PANAMA) | 0.07% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| PERU (REPUBLIC OF) 3.00% 01/15/2034 (PERU) | 0.07% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| CHILE (REPUBLIC OF) 2.55% 07/27/2033 (CHILE) | 0.07% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| Pilgrim's Pride Corp 3.50% 03/01/2032 | 0% | 0.01% | 0% |
| Pilgrim's Pride Corp 6.88% 05/15/2034 | 0% | 0.01% | 0% |
| Republic of Poland Government International Bond 4.88% 10/04/203 | 0% | 0.05% | 0% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What BINC adds that BIV doesn’t
| Holding | BINC | BIV |
|---|---|---|
| UMBS 30YR TBA(REG A) 3.50% 10/13/2026 (UM30) | 5.06% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE (OTR) 4.13% 08/31/2028 (TNOTE) | 3.99% | Not held |
| UMBS 30YR TBA(REG A) 5.50% 10/13/2026 (UM30) | 3.42% | Not held |
| UMBS 30YR TBA(REG A) 6.00% 10/13/2026 (UM30) | 1.68% | Not held |
| UMBS 30YR TBA(REG A) 4.00% 10/13/2026 (UM30) | 1.12% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 09/22/2026 (TBILL) | 1.11% | Not held |
What BIV adds that BINC doesn’t
| Holding | BIV | BINC |
|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.38% 05/15/2036 | 2.36% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.00% 02/15/2034 | 2.15% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.38% 05/15/2034 | 2.13% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.25% 11/15/2034 | 2.09% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.63% 02/15/2035 | 2.09% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.13% 02/15/2036 | 2.08% | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BIV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BIV | 50 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 36 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.2% vs -1.1%; vs 200-day -2.9% vs -3.8% |
| Risk Resilience | BIV | Risk Resilience 81 vs 92 |
| 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 BINC and BIV 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 moderate at 8 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 BIV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20BIV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BIV +8
- 50 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- BIV +8
- 48 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- BIV +3
- 48 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- BIV +1
- 52 vs 53
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when BIV moved ahead of BINC.
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only BIV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week Low Proximity, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
BIV 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.12%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.04%, 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.
- 1BINC closes the Momentum gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to BIV's edge.
- 2BINC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BIV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
BINC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BINC | BIV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.5% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.6% | -2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.4% | -5.1% |
| Year to date | -4.1% | -5.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4.9% | -6.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | BINC | BIV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.2 | 65.5 |
| ADX (14) | 43.1 | 31.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.2% | -1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.9% | -3.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 2.8% | 5.4% |
Risk
BIV is the more resilient| Metric | BINC | BIV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.12 | 0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.93 | -2.42 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.35 | -3.39 |
| Max drawdown | -5.5% | -8.2% |
| Current drawdown | -5.4% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 3% | 4.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.4% | -0.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between BINC and BIV?
BINC and BIV have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do BINC and BIV overlap?
BINC and BIV share 0.18% of their weighted exposure across 7 common holdings. 3,958 holdings are unique to BINC, and 2,318 holdings are unique to BIV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, BINC or BIV?
BINC holds more positions: 4,543 versus 2,331 for BIV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
BIV has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.52% for BINC.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
BINC, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 6.04% against 4.49% for BIV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
BIV has been more volatile over the past year, at 4.4% annualized against 3% for BINC.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
BINC fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -5.5% against -8.2% for BIV.
Compare BINC and BIV 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.