DV
Dividend Vision

ETF Comparison

IBB vs XLV: Which Is the Better Pick in 2026?

A head-to-head comparison of iShares Biotechnology ETF and State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF covering yield, cost, risk, and income potential.

Data updated August 14, 2026

Best for

  • IBBInvestors who want broad equity exposure.
  • XLVInvestors who want higher current income (1.57% vs 0.05% for IBB).

Jump to the side-by-side numbers

Side-by-side snapshot

Side-by-side snapshot. Each row is one metric; each column is one fund.
MetricIBBXLV
Full nameiShares Biotechnology ETFState Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF
IssueriSharesState Street
Last Close$198.26 as of August 14, 2026$167.37 as of August 14, 2026
Distribution yield0.05%1.57%
Distribution Safety Score™ 73100
Expense ratio0.45%0.09%
AUM$9.31B$41.9B
Distribution frequencyQuarterlyQuarterly
Underlying indexICE Biotechnology IndexHealth Care Select Sector Index
ObjectiveTracks the ICE Biotechnology Index of US-listed biotechnology companies.Provide exposure to the fund's underlying index or strategy per issuer materials.
Asset classEquityEquity
Inception date02/05/200112/16/1998
Beta0.70.51
Last dividend$0.0240$0.6560
Ex-dividend date06/15/202606/22/2026

Bottom lineChoose IBB if you want broad equity exposure. Choose XLV if you want higher current income (1.57% vs 0.05% for IBB).

Model this comparison:
Compare in my portfolio Forecast income Save to watchlist

Income calculator

See how much monthly income a hypothetical investment would generate in each ETF at current yields.

iShares
ETFs473
Total AUM$4664B

ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.

iShares is one of the largest ETF providers globally, known for offering a broad, diversified lineup of exchange-traded funds across multiple asset classes and investment strategies. The company operates 215 funds spanning 15 distinct families, including popular offerings in dividend income, covered call strategies, bonds, equities, ESG-focused investments, and factor-based approaches, with widely-held tickers like AGG (bond), ACWI (global equity), and AOA (allocation). iShares is characterized by its comprehensive fund ecosystem that serves both core portfolio holdings and specialized investment strategies, making it a prominent player for investors seeking both traditional and alternative income-generating ETF solutions.

See our curated list of related YouTube videos on IBB.

See all iShares ETFs
State Street
ETFs180
Total AUM$2127B

ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.

State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) is one of the largest ETF providers globally, known for its flagship SPDR suite of exchange-traded products that serve both institutional and retail investors across a broad range of asset classes. Their 88-fund lineup spans diverse strategies including sector exposure (Select Sector SPDR), income generation (Income and Select Sector SPDR Premium Income families), commodities (including the widely-held GLD gold ETF), bonds, ESG-focused investments, and thematic allocations, with popular tickers like DIA (Diamonds Trust), FEZ (Eurozone exposure), and JNK (high-yield bonds) among their most recognized funds. The issuer is characterized by its comprehensive coverage across multiple market segments and its emphasis on both traditional index-based products and specialized strategies like covered call income funds and factor-based investing.

See our curated list of related YouTube videos on XLV.

See all State Street ETFs

Want to go deeper?

Add these ETFs to a sample portfolio and forecast your dividend income over 5+ years — free to start, no credit card.

Compare in my portfolio Forecast income Save to watchlist

Visual comparison

Key metrics

Projected income on $10K

Projections assume the current yield and share price remain constant. Actual results will vary.

Total returns

IBB has outpaced XLV over the trailing twelve months, posting a 44.98% total return against 27.76%. The picture flips over 10 years, though — XLV has compounded at 10.20% a year, ahead of IBB at 7.54%. XLV has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 14.5% against 20.5% for IBB. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested.

Total return and risk statistics by fund. Each row is one fund; each column is one period or statistic.
SymbolYTD1Y3Y5Y10YSince Feb 2001Volatility Sharpe Sortino Max drawdown
IBB17.42%44.98%15.90%3.47%7.54%7.38%20.5%0.500.71-24.9%
XLV8.54%27.76%8.95%6.30%10.20%8.76%14.5%0.280.40-17.1%

Total return with all distributions reinvested on the ex-dividend date, split-adjusted, as of August 14, 2026. YTD and 1Y are cumulative; longer windows are annualized. “Since Feb 2001” measures every fund from February 9, 2001 — the youngest fund's first trading day — so all funds share one comparison window. Volatility is the annualized standard deviation of daily total returns over the trailing 3 years. Sharpe and Sortino divide the annualized return in excess of the risk-free rate by, respectively, that volatility and the downside deviation (both over the trailing 3 years) — higher is better. Max drawdown is the largest peak-to-trough total-return decline over the same window — shallower is better.

Quick verdict

IBB (iShares Biotechnology ETF) and XLV (State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF) are both quarterly-pay dividend ETFs, but they take different approaches.

XLV offers the higher yield at 1.57% vs 0.05% for IBB. A higher yield means more current income per dollar invested, though it may come with different risk characteristics.

XLV is cheaper with an expense ratio of 0.09% compared to 0.45%.

They track different benchmarks: IBB is linked to ICE Biotechnology Index while XLV tracks Health Care Select Sector Index, which means their performance drivers differ.

XLV is the larger fund by assets ($41.9B), which generally means tighter spreads and better liquidity.

Deep dive

Yield & income

On a $10,000 investment, IBB would generate roughly $0.42/month, while XLV would produce $13.08/month, at current distribution rates. Both pay quarterly distributions.

IBB yield0.05%
XLV yield1.57%
Monthly diff on $10K$12.67

Cost & efficiency

Over 10 years on $10,000, IBB would cost approximately $450 in fees vs $90 for XLV (simplified, not compounded). The $360.00 difference may be offset by yield or performance.

IBB ER0.45%
XLV ER0.09%

Strategy & risk

IBB tracks ICE Biotechnology Index, while XLV tracks Health Care Select Sector Index with an index approach. Beta is 0.7 for IBB and 0.51 for XLV, indicating XLV is less volatile relative to the market.

IBB beta0.7
XLV beta0.51

Fund details

IBB is managed by iShares (launched 02/05/2001) with $9.31B in assets. XLV is managed by State Street (launched 12/16/1998) with $41.9B in assets.

IBB AUM$9.31B
XLV AUM$41.9B
Ready to act?
Open in Comparator Model in portfolio See pricing

Enjoyed this page?

Do us a favor — if you found this comparison useful, please share it with a friend researching dividend ETFs.

Frequently asked questions

What is the current distribution yield for IBB and XLV?

IBB currently distributes 0.05% and XLV 1.57%, based on fund data updated August 2026. Distribution yield moves with both the payout and the share price, so check the as-of date before relying on either figure.

Is IBB or XLV better for dividend income?

It depends on your goals. XLV currently offers the higher distribution yield, which means more income per dollar invested. However, a lower-yield fund may offer better total return or lower volatility. Consider your time horizon and risk tolerance.

What is the difference between IBB and XLV?

IBB (iShares Biotechnology ETF) tracks ICE Biotechnology Index, while XLV (State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF) tracks Health Care Select Sector Index with an index approach. They are issued by iShares and State Street respectively.

Can I hold both IBB and XLV?

Yes — nothing prevents holding both. Whether the combination actually diversifies depends on how much the underlying exposures overlap, which isn't fully measurable from the data on this page; review each security's holdings, sector, and strategy before treating them as complementary.

Is IBB or XLV safer?

By Dividend Vision's Distribution Safety Score — a rules-based 0–100 estimate of how resilient a distribution looks, where higher is safer — XLV scores 100, IBB scores 73, so XLV's payout currently looks the more resilient of the two. XLV has also shown lower price volatility (beta 0.51 vs 0.70 for IBB). No score makes an investment risk-free — treat this as a screening signal, not a guarantee.

Which has lower fees, IBB or XLV?

IBB has an expense ratio of 0.45% while XLV charges 0.09%. Lower fees mean more of your investment returns stay in your pocket over time.

How much income does $10,000 in IBB vs XLV generate?

At current rates, $10,000 in IBB would generate roughly $0.42 per month ($5.00 annually). The same in XLV would produce about $13.08 per month ($157.00 annually).

Which has performed better historically, IBB or XLV?

IBB has outpaced XLV over the trailing twelve months, posting a 44.98% total return against 27.76%. The picture flips over 10 years, though — XLV has compounded at 10.20% a year, ahead of IBB at 7.54%. XLV has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 14.5% against 20.5% for IBB. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

More comparisons to explore

People also compare IBB with

IBB vs XBI

People also compare XLV with

XLV vs VHTXLV vs HLTH

Popular comparisons

JEPI vs JEPQSCHD vs VYMVOO vs VTIJEPI vs SCHD

IBB vs XLV — at a glance

Generated August 15, 2026.

Overview

IBB and XLV are both healthcare-focused ETFs tracking US-listed companies, but they serve different segments of the sector. IBB narrows the lens to biotechnology firms via the ICE Biotechnology Index, while XLV provides broader healthcare exposure—including pharma, medical devices, health insurers, and providers—through the Health Care Select Sector Index. The key tradeoff is sector concentration versus diversification.

How they differ

IBB isolates biotechnology, a high-risk, high-reward subsector defined by drug pipelines and FDA approvals. XLV spans the entire healthcare sector, blending biotech, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, insurers, and hospital systems into a single portfolio. This structural difference drives most others: XLV yields 1.57% versus IBB's 0.05%, reflecting the steady dividend payments of diversified healthcare firms against biotech's research-first capital allocation. XLV costs less to own (0.09% expense ratio) and holds $41.9B in AUM compared to IBB's $9.31B. IBB also carries meaningfully higher beta at 0.7, signaling greater sensitivity to market moves and sector rotation.

Who each is best for

IBB: Fits investors seeking concentrated exposure to biotechnology innovation and willing to tolerate the volatility of early-stage drug discovery, clinical trial risk, and regulatory outcomes tied to individual company pipelines.

XLV: Fits investors who want healthcare sector participation but prefer the stability of diversified revenue streams—established pharmaceuticals, medical-device franchises, and recurring insurance or hospital revenues—alongside smaller biotech allocations.

Key risks to know

  • Biotech pipeline and regulatory risk (IBB): Biotechnology companies depend heavily on successful drug development and FDA approval. A single clinical trial failure or regulatory setback can crater individual holdings; IBB's narrow focus means no offsetting diversification to absorb those shocks.
  • Beta divergence: IBB's beta of 0.7 and XLV's beta of 0.51 signal that IBB amplifies market declines and recoveries at a faster rate. Biotech sector rotation can produce sharp drawdowns when risk appetite sinks and investors flee speculative growth.
  • Income yield disparity: IBB's 0.05% distribution rate reflects biotech's reinvestment of cash into R&D rather than dividends, creating minimal income but exposing the fund to capital appreciation risk. XLV's 1.57% yield relies on dividend-paying pharma and healthcare services; a broad dividend cut across the sector would pressure NAV.
  • Sector overlap and correlation: Both funds hold pharmaceutical and biotech names, so their returns may move together during healthcare sector rallies or downturns, limiting diversification benefit if used as complementary holdings.

Bottom line

IBB targets growth-oriented investors comfortable with biotech volatility and reinvested earnings; XLV suits those seeking steady income and lower market sensitivity from a diversified healthcare portfolio. Neither approach is inherently superior—the choice depends on whether you prioritize concentrated biotech exposure or sector-wide stability.

AI-generated analysis for educational purposes only. Verify important details independently; past performance does not guarantee future results.

Learn the method

The metrics behind this comparison, explained in the Academy.

How to read a fund's stats How expense ratios eat returns Correlation between two funds

Still deciding? Compare them against your own portfolio

See how each ETF fits alongside your real holdings — forecast future income, analyze overlap, and gauge risk. Start a free 7-day Dividend Vision trial and make the call with your full portfolio in view.

Start Free Open in Comparator Browse Screener