IHI vs KBWB: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IHI and KBWB are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IHI is iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF, while KBWB is Invesco KBW Bank ETF. IHI is broader by holdings count, with 49 positions versus 29 for KBWB. IHI is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has KBWB ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 57.
What is the main difference between IHI and KBWB?
IHI and KBWB have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IHI | KBWB |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.37% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 49 | 29 |
| Top-10 concentration | 74.2% | 61% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.48% | 2.09% |
| Average volume | 2,860,759 | 2,057,849 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -11.7% | +15.9% |
| YTD return | -12.1% | +5.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | -3.1% | +7.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 20.5% | 19.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -26.2% | -16.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -32.4% | -49.3% |
| Beta | 0.40 | 0.90 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.70 | 0.65 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.11 | 0.91 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 62/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 79/100 | 58/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 70/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF vs Invesco KBW Bank ETF
KBWB leads
KBWB leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Value.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support KBWB, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF
Invesco KBW Bank ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KBWB over IHI, 62 versus 57 as of Oct 31, 2026. KBWB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while IHI holds the stronger momentum profile. KBWB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor KBWB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. KBWB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF and Invesco KBW Bank ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IHI vs KBWB: 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 | IHI | KBWB | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.37% | 0.35% | KBWB |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 49 | 29 | IHI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 74.2% | 61% | KBWB |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.48% | 2.09% | KBWB |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -32.4% | -49.3% | IHI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 20.5% | 19.8% | Similar |
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 IHI and KBWB 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.
- Value31 vs 65KBWB +34
- Momentum79 vs 58IHI +21
- Risk Resilience70 vs 72Even
- Quality59 vs 59Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor KBWB. KBWB’s edge is concentrated in value; IHI keeps a meaningful momentum 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: 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
KBWB's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IHI and KBWB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KBWB (Invesco KBW Bank ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
IHI (iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 19.7% against 13.9%.
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 | IHI | KBWB | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.37% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 49 | 29 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,860,759 | 2,057,849 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 20.5% | 19.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -26.2% | -16.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.70 | 0.65 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.40 | 0.90 | 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
IHI and KBWB share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
46 holdings are unique to IHI, and 25 holdings are unique to KBWB. 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 60.99% for KBWB (49 holdings vs 29). 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 IHI adds that KBWB doesn’t
| Holding | IHI | KBWB |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
What KBWB adds that IHI doesn’t
| Holding | KBWB | IHI |
|---|---|---|
| BACBank of America Corp | 8.77% | Not held |
| JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co | 8.54% | Not held |
| WFCWells Fargo & Co | 8.34% | Not held |
| MSMorgan Stanley | 7.39% | Not held |
| GSGoldman Sachs Group Inc/The | 7.19% | Not held |
| STTState Street Corp | 4.45% | 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.
IHI vs KBWB: five-year payout growth
IHI grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.37% a year against KBWB's 5.36%.
| Dividend metric | IHI | KBWB |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 9.37% | 5.36% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.136 | $1.323 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.212 | $1.717 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #61 of 138 | #91 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
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor KBWB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KBWB | 57 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | KBWB | Value 31 vs 65 |
| Technicals | IHI | Price vs 50-day 2.9% vs -3.1%; vs 200-day 1.9% vs 0.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 70 vs 72 |
| 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 IHI and KBWB 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 narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 KBWB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28KBWB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KBWB +5
- 57 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- KBWB +1
- 57 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- KBWB +7
- 47 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- KBWB +8
- 50 vs 58
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when KBWB moved ahead of IHI.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IHI
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.06%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only KBWB
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.72%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
IHI is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -1.98%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.86%, 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.
- 1IHI closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to KBWB's edge.
- 2IHI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3KBWB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
IHI leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | IHI | KBWB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.3% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.8% | 2.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.6% | -7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.5% | 3.6% |
| Year to date | -12.1% | 5.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -11.7% | 15.9% |
Technicals
IHI has the stronger structure| Metric | IHI | KBWB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 75.3 | 59.5 |
| ADX (14) | 24.8 | 23.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.9% | -3.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.9% | 0.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.7% | 13.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IHI | KBWB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.4 | 0.9 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.7 | 0.65 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.11 | 0.91 |
| Max drawdown | -26.2% | -16.4% |
| Current drawdown | -15.3% | -10.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.5% | 19.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IHI and KBWB?
IHI and KBWB have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IHI and KBWB overlap?
IHI and KBWB share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 46 holdings are unique to IHI, and 25 holdings are unique to KBWB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IHI or KBWB?
IHI holds more positions: 49 versus 29 for KBWB.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
KBWB has the lower expense ratio, 0.35% a year against 0.37% for IHI.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
KBWB, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.09% against 0.48% for IHI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 20.5% annualized for IHI and 19.8% for KBWB.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IHI fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -32.4% against -49.3% for KBWB.
Compare IHI and KBWB 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.