IBB vs XBI Comparison – which is better? are discussed in this article. You will find it informative and helpful for your research.

IBB vs XBI Comparison

The IBB is popularly called iShares Biotechnology ETF and the XBI is popularly called SPDR S&P Biotech ETF. The ETF Database Category is Health & Biotech Equities and Health & Biotech Equities for IBB and XBI respectively.

Read Also: Displaced Moving Average (DMA) – Top Trading Strategies

The Indexes are ICE Biotechnology Index and S&P Biotechnology Select Industry for IBB and XBI respectively. Judging from their Index Description, IBB has an Expense Ratio of about 0.45%  while an expense ratio has an index of 0.35%. This shows that XBI is better to structure the ETF.

The Issuers are Blackrock Financial Management and State Street for IBB and XBI respectively. Also, the Inception Date is 2001-02-05 and 2006-01-31 for IBB and XBI respectively.

The analysis of these ETF structures in terms of their AUM are $9.92B  and $7.08B for IBB and XBI respectively. A lower AUM is usually preferable is the XBI with an Outstanding Shares of 57.6M and IBB has Outstanding Shares of 64.4M.

Thus the Average Daily Volume in a month for IBB is about 1,717,433.0 and the ADV for XBI is about 5,812,379.0 which is better.

Again, the ADV for 3 months are 1,940,548.0 and 5,025,456.0 for IBB and XBI respectively. This still portrays that XBI is better and more preferred.

Read Also: Quarter on Quarter (QOQ) – Overview, Uses, Examples

This article will be focused on the comparison of several ETF metrics between IBB and XBI relative to the compare fees, performance, dividend yield, holdings, technical indicators, and many other metrics to determine which has a better investment decision.

Overview

Some important comparison metrics used are expense ratio, issuer, AUM, and shares outstanding, among others. Also, ADV which represents the Average Daily Volume determines how investors prevent illiquid ETFs.

Analysis of IBB and XBI Holdings

The Analysis of IBB and XBI Holdings and their corresponding weightings on an average weight is heightened below;

The Holding for Amgen Inc. (AMGN) has a Weighting of about 8.20%. Holding and Weighting are Gilead Sciences, Inc. (GILD) and 6.93% respectively.

The Holding for Moderna, Inc. (MRNA) has a Weighting of about 5.78%. The Holding for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (REGN) has a Weighting of about 5.38%. The Holding for 5IQVIA Holdings Inc (IQV) has a Weighting of about 4.11%.

Read Also: Difference Between Delta Hedging and Beta Hedging

The Holding for Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated (VRTX) has a Weighting of about 3.98%. The Holding for BioNTech SE Sponsored ADR (BNTX) has a Weighting of about 3.75%.

The Holding for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN) has a Weighting of about 3.71%. The Holding for Biogen Inc. (BIIB) has a Weighting of about 3.15%.

The Holding for Mettler-Toledo International Inc. (MTD) has a Weighting of about 2.86%. The Holding for Seagen, Inc. (SGEN) has a Weighting of about 2.71%.

The Holding for Waters Corporation (WAT) has a Weighting of about 1.72%. The Holding for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc (ALNY) has a Weighting of about 1.67%. The Holding for BeiGene, Ltd. Sponsored ADR (BGNE) has a Weighting of about 1.61%.

The Holding for Genmab A/S Sponsored ADR (GMAB) has a Weighting of about 1.61%. The Holding for Chemocentryx, Inc. (CCXI) has a Weighting of about 2.00%. The Holding for Acceleron Pharma Inc (XLRN) has a Weighting of about 1.06%.

The Holding for Seres Therapeutics Inc (MCRB) has a Weighting of about 1.05%. The Holding for Cytokinetics, Incorporated (CYTK) has a Weighting of about 1.04%.

The Holding for Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (APLS) has a Weighting of about 1.01%. The Holding for Avid Bioservices, Inc. (CDMO) has a Weighting of about 0.97%.

The Holding for Seagen, Inc. (SGEN) has a Weighting of about 0.95%. The Holding for ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. (ACAD) has a Weighting of about 0.95%.

Read Also: Condor Credit Overview, how it works and advantages over Competitors

The Holding for OPKO Health, Inc. (OPK) has a Weighting of about 0.94%. The Holding for Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated (LGND) has a Weighting of about 0.92%.

The Holding for Global Blood Therapeutics Inc (GBT) has a Weighting of about 0.92%. The Holding for Blueprint Medicines Corp. (BPMC) has a Weighting of about 0.89%.

The Holding for Karuna Therapeutics, Inc. (KRTX) has a Weighting of about 0.88%. The Holding for Anavex Life Sciences Corp. (AVXL) has a Weighting of about 0.87%. The Holding for Insmed Incorporated (INSM) has a Weighting of about 0.87%.

Analyst Take and the Real-time Ratings

Analyst Take and the Real-time Ratings will also reveal the most preferable ETF structure with respect to the IBB and XBI structures;

IBB has 1 Week Return of about 0.17% while XBI has about -3.24%. IBB has 2 Week Return of about -5.04% while XBI has about -8.25%. IBB has 1 Month Return of about -2.15% while XBI has about -2.29%. IBB has 3 Month Return of about -9.83% while XBI has about -1.20%. IBB has 26 Week Return of about 1.07%  while XBI has about -4.19%. IBB has YTD Return of about 1.62% while XBI has about -13.16%. IBB has 1 Year Return of about 11.67% while XBI has about -1.56%. IBB has 3 Year Return of about 47.19% while XBI has about 54.09%. IBB has Beta of about 0.93 while XBI has about 1.21. IBB has P/E Ratio of about 32.24 while XBI has about 12.07.

IBB has an Annual Dividend Rate of about $0.34 while XBI has about $0.22. IBB has a Dividend Date of 2021-09-24 while XBI has about 2021-03-22. IBB has a Dividend of $0.12 while XBI has $0.04. IBB has an Annual Dividend Yield % of about 0.22% while XBI has about 0.17%. IBB has 5 Day Volatility of about 87.94% while XBI has about 125.12%. IBB has 20 Day Volatility of about 18.46% while XBI has about 24.96%. IBB has 50 Day Volatility of about 18.95% while XBI has about 23.44%. IBB has 200 Day Volatility of about 19.71% while XBI has about 25.40%. IBB has a Standard Deviation of about 8.38% while XBI has about 11.13%.

Read Also: Best OsMA Trading Strategy

Conclusion

XBI is preferable since XBI is additionally attractive to depositors because of its inexpensive price ratio.