BIL vs SHV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
BIL and SHV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. BIL is State Street SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF, while SHV is iShares Trust iShares 0-1 Year Treasury Bond ETF. SHV is broader by holdings count, with 67 positions versus 19 for BIL. BIL is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SHV ahead on AIQ Score, 57 versus 56.
What is the main difference between BIL and SHV?
SHV holds 67 positions to BIL's 19, and 28% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | BIL | SHV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.14% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 19 | 67 |
| Top-10 concentration | 74.5% | 34.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 3.66% | 3.63% |
| Average volume | 10,157,476 | 3,044,022 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | 0% | 0% |
| YTD return | +0.2% | +0.1% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +3.7% | +3.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 1% | 1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -0.5% | -0.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -0.1% | -0.4% |
| Beta | -0.01 | 0.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.80 | -3.88 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.21 | -3.16 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 57/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 56/100 | 57/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 66/100 | 66/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF vs iShares Trust iShares 0-1 Year Treasury Bond ETF
SHV leads
SHV leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support SHV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF
iShares Trust iShares 0-1 Year Treasury Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SHV over BIL, 57 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. SHV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while BIL holds the stronger quality profile. SHV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SHV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. SHV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF and iShares Trust iShares 0-1 Year Treasury Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
BIL vs SHV: 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 | BIL | SHV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.14% | 0.15% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 19 | 67 | SHV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 74.5% | 34.5% | SHV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 3.66% | 3.63% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -0.1% | -0.4% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 1% | 1% | 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 BIL and SHV 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.
- Value36 vs 45SHV +9
- Quality72 vs 66BIL +6
- Momentum56 vs 57Even
- Risk Resilience66 vs 66Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor SHV. SHV’s edge is concentrated in value; BIL keeps a meaningful quality 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 +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
SHV's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BIL and SHV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SHV (iShares Trust iShares 0-1 Year Treasury Bond ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
BIL (State Street SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF): the counter-case, on quality.
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 | BIL | SHV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.14% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 19 | 67 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 10,157,476 | 3,044,022 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 1% | 1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -0.5% | -0.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.80 | -3.88 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.01 | 0.00 | 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
BIL and SHV share 28.05% of their weighted exposure across 16 common holdings.
1 holding is unique to BIL, and 49 holdings are unique to SHV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
BIL is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 74.46% of the fund, against 34.49% for SHV (19 holdings vs 67). 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 | BIL | SHV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BILL 10/26 0.00000 | 10.31% | 4.19% | 4.19% |
| TREASURY BILL 10/26 0.00000 | 6.33% | 3.57% | 3.57% |
| TREASURY BILL 10/26 0.00000 | 4.77% | 3.29% | 3.29% |
| TREASURY BILL 11/26 0.00000 | 6.38% | 3.08% | 3.08% |
| TREASURY BILL 11/26 0.00000 | 8.49% | 2.54% | 2.54% |
| TREASURY BILL 11/26 0.00000 | 4.27% | 2.2% | 2.2% |
| TREASURY BILL 11/26 0.00000 | 6.37% | 1.99% | 1.99% |
| TREASURY BILL 11/26 0.00000 | 2.4% | 1.77% | 1.77% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What BIL adds that SHV doesn’t
| Holding | BIL | SHV |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BILL 10/26 0.00000 | 10.31% | 4.19% |
| TREASURY BILL 10/26 0.00000 | 10.11% | 0.22% |
| TREASURY BILL 11/26 0.00000 | 8.49% | 2.54% |
| TREASURY BILL 10/26 0.00000 | 7.01% | 0.23% |
| TREASURY BILL 10/26 0.00000 | 6.71% | 0.23% |
| TREASURY BILL 11/26 0.00000 | 6.38% | 0.3% |
What SHV adds that BIL doesn’t
| Holding | SHV | BIL |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BILL 01/14/2027 | 4.58% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 12/15/2026 | 3.33% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 12/22/2026 | 3.29% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 10/01/2026 | 3.12% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 01/07/2027 | 3.05% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 12/31/2026 | 2.98% | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SHV. 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 | 56 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SHV | Value 36 vs 45 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.1% vs 0.1%; vs 200-day 0.1% vs 0% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 66 vs 66 |
| 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 BIL and SHV 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 SHV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SHV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SHV +1
- 56 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- BIL +1
- 56 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 62 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- SHV +1
- 56 vs 57
The lead changed hands 16 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when SHV moved ahead of BIL.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only BIL
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.01%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SHV
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.02%)
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Compression, 52-Week High Proximity, 52-Week Low Proximity, MACD Bullish Crossover.
SHV 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.02%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.01%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1BIL closes the Value gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to SHV's edge.
- 2BIL's 52-Week Low Proximity resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3SHV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
BIL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BIL | SHV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0% | 0% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0% | 0% |
| Year to date | 0.2% | 0.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0% | 0% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | BIL | SHV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.9 | 43.8 |
| ADX (14) | 16.2 | 19.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.1% | 0% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 1% | 0.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BIL | SHV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.01 | 0 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.8 | -3.88 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.21 | -3.16 |
| Max drawdown | -0.5% | -0.4% |
| Current drawdown | -0.2% | -0.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 1% | 1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | 0% | 0% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between BIL and SHV?
SHV holds 67 positions to BIL's 19, and 28% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do BIL and SHV overlap?
BIL and SHV share 28.05% of their weighted exposure across 16 common holdings. 1 holding is unique to BIL, and 49 holdings are unique to SHV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, BIL or SHV?
SHV holds more positions: 67 versus 19 for BIL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 0.14% for BIL and 0.15% for SHV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 3.66% for BIL and 3.63% for SHV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 1% annualized for BIL and 1% for SHV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -0.1% for BIL and -0.4% for SHV.
Compare BIL and SHV 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.