IYR vs REET: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IYR and REET are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IYR is iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF, while REET is iShares Global REIT ETF. REET is broader by holdings count, with 349 positions versus 63 for IYR. IYR is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has REET ahead on AIQ Score, 56 versus 55.
What is the main difference between IYR and REET?
REET holds 349 positions to IYR's 63, and 64% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IYR | REET |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.37% | 0.14% |
| Holdings | 63 | 349 |
| Top-10 concentration | 53.2% | 42.9% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.43% | 3.57% |
| Average volume | 5,580,083 | 2,893,282 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +1.7% | +2.2% |
| YTD return | +4.4% | +4.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +0.3% | +0.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 14.2% | 12.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.5% | -12.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -33.7% | -32.1% |
| Beta | 0.29 | 0.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | -0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.20 | -0.18 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 55/100 | 56/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 54/100 | 46/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 82/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF vs iShares Global REIT ETF
REET leads
REET leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support REET, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF
iShares Global REIT ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors REET over IYR, 56 versus 55 as of Oct 21, 2026. REET's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while IYR holds the stronger momentum profile. REET also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor REET today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. REET lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF and iShares Global REIT ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IYR vs REET: 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 | IYR | REET | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.37% | 0.14% | REET |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 63 | 349 | REET |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 53.2% | 42.9% | REET |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.43% | 3.57% | REET |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -33.7% | -32.1% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 14.2% | 12.4% | REET |
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 IYR and REET 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.
- Value37 vs 48REET +11
- Momentum54 vs 46IYR +8
- Quality62 vs 60Even
- Risk Resilience80 vs 82Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor REET. REET’s edge is concentrated in value; IYR keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 +10
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
REET's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IYR and REET both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
REET (iShares Global REIT ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
IYR (iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF): the counter-case, on momentum.
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 | IYR | REET | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.37% | 0.14% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 63 | 349 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 5,580,083 | 2,893,282 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 14.2% | 12.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.5% | -12.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | -0.12 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.29 | 0.34 | 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
IYR and REET share 63.68% of their weighted exposure across 46 common holdings.
14 holdings are unique to IYR, and 277 holdings are unique to REET. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
IYR is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 53.22% of the fund, against 42.93% for REET (63 holdings vs 349). 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 | IYR | REET | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| WELLWELLTOWER | 11.39% | 9.31% | 9.31% |
| PLDPROLOGIS REIT | 8.99% | 7.16% | 7.16% |
| EQIXEQUINIX REIT | 4.61% | 5.73% | 4.61% |
| DLRDIGITAL REALTY TRUST REIT | 4.92% | 3.82% | 3.82% |
| SPGSIMON PROPERTY GROUP REIT INC | 4.41% | 3.65% | 3.65% |
| OREALTY INCOME REIT | 4.2% | 3.13% | 3.13% |
| EQRVIVMARK RESIDENTIAL | 3.56% | 2.76% | 2.76% |
| PSAPUBLIC STORAGE REIT | 3.7% | 2.76% | 2.76% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What IYR adds that REET doesn’t
| Holding | IYR | REET |
|---|---|---|
| AMTAMERICAN TOWER REIT | 4.19% | Not held |
| CBRECBRE GROUP CLASS A | 3.06% | Not held |
| CCICROWN CASTLE INC | 2.46% | Not held |
| SBACSBA COMMUNICATIONS REIT CORP CLASS | 1.48% | Not held |
| NLYANNALY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT REIT | 1.24% | Not held |
| WYWEYERHAEUSER REIT | 1.22% | Not held |
What REET adds that IYR doesn’t
| Holding | REET | IYR |
|---|---|---|
| GMG.AXGOODMAN GROUP UNITS | 2.19% | Not held |
| SGRO.LSEGRO REIT PLC | 0.96% | Not held |
| URW.PAUNIBAIL RODAMCO WE STAPLED UNITS | 0.74% | Not held |
| SCG.AXSCENTRE GROUP | 0.73% | Not held |
| 0823.HKLINK REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST | 0.72% | Not held |
| C38U.SICAPITALAND INTEGRATED COMMERCIAL T | 0.65% | 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.
IYR vs REET: five-year payout growth
REET grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 7.71% a year against IYR's 1.07%. IYR: The 2020 payout was 22.1% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. REET: The 2020 payout was 56.4% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. REET: The payout jumped 53.8% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | IYR | REET |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 1.07% | 7.71% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.210 | $0.632 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.330 | $0.916 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #125 of 138 | #74 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
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor REET. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 55 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | REET | Value 37 vs 48 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -2.7% vs -3.2%; vs 200-day -2.2% vs -3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 80 vs 82 |
| 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 IYR and REET 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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 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 REET.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20REET lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- REET +1
- 55 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- REET +1
- 53 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- REET +3
- 48 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- IYR +2
- 53 vs 51
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when REET moved ahead of IYR.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only IYR
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
REET 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 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.95%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.54%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1IYR closes the Value gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to REET's edge.
- 2IYR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3REET's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
IYR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | IYR | REET |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.4% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.7% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.6% | -8.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.4% | -3.7% |
| Year to date | 4.4% | 4.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.7% | 2.2% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | IYR | REET |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.5 | 55.4 |
| ADX (14) | 29.3 | 36.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.7% | -3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.2% | -3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 12.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IYR | REET |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.29 | 0.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | -0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.2 | -0.18 |
| Max drawdown | -12.5% | -12.1% |
| Current drawdown | -8.6% | -9.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 14.2% | 12.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IYR and REET?
REET holds 349 positions to IYR's 63, and 64% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IYR and REET overlap?
IYR and REET share 63.68% of their weighted exposure across 46 common holdings. 14 holdings are unique to IYR, and 277 holdings are unique to REET. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, IYR or REET?
REET holds more positions: 349 versus 63 for IYR.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
REET has the lower expense ratio, 0.14% a year against 0.37% for IYR.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
REET, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 3.57% against 2.43% for IYR.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IYR has been more volatile over the past year, at 14.2% annualized against 12.4% for REET.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -33.7% for IYR and -32.1% for REET.
Compare IYR and REET 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.