IBB vs IHI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IBB and IHI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IBB is iShares Biotechnology ETF, while IHI is iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF. IBB is broader by holdings count, with 247 positions versus 49 for IHI. IHI is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
What is the main difference between IBB and IHI?
IBB holds 247 positions to IHI's 49, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IBB | IHI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.44% | 0.37% |
| Holdings | 247 | 49 |
| Top-10 concentration | 47.5% | 74.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.16% | 0.48% |
| Average volume | 1,638,365 | 2,860,759 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +39.4% | -11.7% |
| YTD return | +28.2% | -12.1% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6.3% | -3.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 22.8% | 20.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.7% | -26.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35.7% | -32.4% |
| Beta | 0.80 | 0.40 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.33 | -0.70 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.43 | -1.11 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 57/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 79/100 | 79/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 56/100 | 70/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Biotechnology ETF vs iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF
IBB and IHI are effectively level
IBB and IHI are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
iShares Biotechnology ETF
iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate IBB and IHI as of Oct 31, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare iShares Biotechnology ETF and iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IBB vs IHI: 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 | IBB | IHI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.44% | 0.37% | IHI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 247 | 49 | IBB |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 47.5% | 74.2% | IBB |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.16% | 0.48% | IHI |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35.7% | -32.4% | IHI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 22.8% | 20.5% | IHI |
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 IBB and IHI 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 Resilience56 vs 70IHI +14
- Value37 vs 31IBB +6
- Quality60 vs 59Even
- Momentum79 vs 79Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
IHI's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IBB and IHI 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 | IBB | IHI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.44% | 0.37% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 247 | 49 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,638,365 | 2,860,759 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 22.8% | 20.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.7% | -26.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.33 | -0.70 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.80 | 0.40 | 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
IBB and IHI share 0.12% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings.
243 holdings are unique to IBB, and 45 holdings are unique to IHI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
IHI is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 74.18% of the fund, against 47.53% for IBB (49 holdings vs 247). 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 | IBB | IHI | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVCRNOVOCURE | 0.12% | 0.24% | 0.12% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What IBB adds that IHI doesn’t
| Holding | IBB | IHI |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
What IHI adds that IBB doesn’t
| Holding | IHI | IBB |
|---|---|---|
| ABTABBOTT LABORATORIES | 18.88% | Not held |
| ISRGINTUITIVE SURGICAL | 12.88% | Not held |
| SYKSTRYKER | 9.79% | Not held |
| BDXABECTON DICKINSON | 5.28% | Not held |
| 0Y6X.LMEDTRONIC PLC | 4.97% | Not held |
| DXCMDEXCOM INC | 4.82% | 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.
IBB vs IHI: five-year payout growth
IHI grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.37% a year against IBB's 4.54%. IBB: The 2020 payout was 22.3% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | IBB | IHI |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 4.54% | 9.37% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.310 | $0.136 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.387 | $0.212 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #101 of 138 | #61 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 57 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IBB | Value 37 vs 31 |
| Technicals | IBB | Price vs 50-day 4.5% vs 2.9%; vs 200-day 17.4% vs 1.9% |
| Risk Resilience | IHI | Risk Resilience 56 vs 70 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 narrow at 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28IBB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 57 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- IHI +4
- 53 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- IBB +2
- 49 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- IBB +6
- 56 vs 50
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when IHI moved ahead of IBB.
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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only IBB
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.01%)
- 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
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IHI
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.06%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 -0.11%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.98%, AIQ 0 points).
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 4 of 6 windows| Metric | IBB | IHI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.3% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.8% | 6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13.9% | 3.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 30.8% | 4.5% |
| Year to date | 28.2% | -12.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 39.4% | -11.7% |
Technicals
IBB has the stronger structure| Metric | IBB | IHI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66.8 | 75.3 |
| ADX (14) | 11.5 | 24.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.5% | 2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 17.4% | 1.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.5% | 19.7% |
Risk
IHI is the more resilient| Metric | IBB | IHI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.8 | 0.4 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.33 | -0.7 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.43 | -1.11 |
| Max drawdown | -9.7% | -26.2% |
| Current drawdown | -0.3% | -15.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.8% | 20.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IBB and IHI?
IBB holds 247 positions to IHI's 49, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IBB and IHI overlap?
IBB and IHI share 0.12% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings. 243 holdings are unique to IBB, and 45 holdings are unique to IHI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IBB or IHI?
IBB holds more positions: 247 versus 49 for IHI.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IHI has the lower expense ratio, 0.37% a year against 0.44% for IBB.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
IHI, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 0.48% against 0.16% for IBB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IBB has been more volatile over the past year, at 22.8% annualized against 20.5% for IHI.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IHI fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -32.4% against -35.7% for IBB.
Compare IBB and IHI 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.