BND vs TLTW: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
BND and TLTW are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. BND is Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF, while TLTW is iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF. BND is broader by holdings count, with 17,252 positions versus 50 for TLTW. TLTW is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has BND ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 50.
What is the main difference between BND and TLTW?
BND holds 17,252 positions to TLTW's 50, and 5% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | BND | TLTW |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 17,252 | 50 |
| Top-10 concentration | 4.1% | 40.9% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.15% | 11.55% |
| Average volume | 9,284,617 | 1,580,038 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -5.6% | -13.3% |
| YTD return | -4.5% | -8.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 4.1% | 8.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7% | -17.4% |
| Beta | 0.13 | 0.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.33 | -2.02 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.28 | -2.99 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 62/100 | 50/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 58/100 | 53/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 93/100 | 63/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF vs iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF
BND leads
BND leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support BND, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BND over TLTW, 62 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. BND's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. BND also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BND today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. BND lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
BND vs TLTW: 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 | BND | TLTW | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.35% | BND |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 17,252 | 50 | BND |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 4.1% | 40.9% | BND |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.15% | 11.55% | TLTW |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -7% | -17.4% | BND |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 4.1% | 8.8% | BND |
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 BND and TLTW 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.
- Risk Resilience93 vs 63BND +30
- Quality76 vs 56BND +20
- Momentum58 vs 53BND +5
- Value36 vs 36Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor BND. BND’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
BND's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BND and TLTW both carry a full feed there.
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 | BND | TLTW | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 17,252 | 50 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 9,284,617 | 1,580,038 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 4.1% | 8.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7% | -17.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.33 | -2.02 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.13 | 0.23 | 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
BND and TLTW share 5.48% of their weighted exposure across 46 common holdings.
17,181 holdings are unique to BND, and 1 holding is unique to TLTW. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
TLTW is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 40.87% of the fund, against 4.06% for BND (50 holdings vs 17,252). 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 | BND | TLTW | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BOND (OLD) 5.00% 05/15/2056 | 0.33% | 4.04% | 0.33% |
| TREASURY BOND (2OLD) 4.75% 02/15/2056 | 0.23% | 4.14% | 0.23% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.63% 02/15/2055 | 0.22% | 3.82% | 0.22% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.25% 02/15/2054 | 0.22% | 4.05% | 0.22% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.75% 11/15/2053 | 0.21% | 3.99% | 0.21% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.63% 05/15/2054 | 0.21% | 4.29% | 0.21% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.25% 08/15/2054 | 0.2% | 3.96% | 0.2% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.50% 11/15/2054 | 0.2% | 3.81% | 0.2% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What BND adds that TLTW doesn’t
| Holding | BND | TLTW |
|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 3.50% 01/31/2028 | 0.47% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.25% 11/15/2034 | 0.41% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 3.38% 11/30/2027 | 0.41% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.38% 05/15/2034 | 0.41% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.63% 02/15/2035 | 0.41% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 3.88% 08/15/2034 | 0.4% | Not held |
What TLTW adds that BND doesn’t
| Holding | TLTW | BND |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BOND 4.75% 05/15/2055 | 4.52% | 0.2% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.63% 05/15/2054 | 4.29% | 0.21% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.13% 08/15/2053 | 4.2% | 0.19% |
| TREASURY BOND (2OLD) 4.75% 02/15/2056 | 4.14% | 0.23% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.25% 02/15/2054 | 4.05% | 0.22% |
| TREASURY BOND (OLD) 5.00% 05/15/2056 | 4.04% | 0.33% |
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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BND. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BND | 62 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 36 |
| Technicals | BND | Price vs 50-day -0.8% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day -3.1% vs -6% |
| Risk Resilience | BND | Risk Resilience 93 vs 63 |
| 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 BND and TLTW and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 BND.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20BND lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BND +12
- 62 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- BND +11
- 59 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- BND +11
- 54 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only BND
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.4%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
BND 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%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.29%, 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.
- 1TLTW closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to BND's edge.
- 2TLTW's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BND's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
BND leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BND | TLTW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.6% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.3% | -4.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.1% | -8% |
| Year to date | -4.5% | -8.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5.6% | -13.3% |
Technicals
BND has the stronger structure| Metric | BND | TLTW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 68.5 | 63.3 |
| ADX (14) | 31.4 | 26.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.8% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.1% | -6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 5.1% | 12.1% |
Risk
BND is the more resilient| Metric | BND | TLTW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.13 | 0.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.33 | -2.02 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.28 | -2.99 |
| Max drawdown | -7% | -17.4% |
| Current drawdown | -5.9% | -14.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 4.1% | 8.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.5% | -1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between BND and TLTW?
BND holds 17,252 positions to TLTW's 50, and 5% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do BND and TLTW overlap?
BND and TLTW share 5.48% of their weighted exposure across 46 common holdings. 17,181 holdings are unique to BND, and 1 holding is unique to TLTW. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, BND or TLTW?
BND holds more positions: 17,252 versus 50 for TLTW.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
BND has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.35% for TLTW.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
TLTW, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 11.55% against 4.15% for BND.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
TLTW has been more volatile over the past year, at 8.8% annualized against 4.1% for BND.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
BND fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -7% against -17.4% for TLTW.
Compare BND and TLTW 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.