IEI vs RFIX: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IEI and RFIX are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IEI is iShares 3-7 Year Treasury Bond ETF, while RFIX is Simplify Bond Bull ETF. IEI is broader by holdings count, with 85 positions versus 9 for RFIX. IEI has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IEI ahead on AIQ Score, 59 versus 43.
What is the main difference between IEI and RFIX?
IEI holds 85 positions to RFIX's 9, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IEI | RFIX |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.5% |
| Holdings | 85 | 9 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 3.82% | 4.47% |
| Average volume | 1,834,188 | 380,593 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -5.3% | -18% |
| YTD return | -4.5% | +0.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 3.3% | 27.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.3% | -23.3% |
| Beta | 0.07 | 0.10 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.74 | -0.66 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.73 | -1.11 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 43/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 56/100 | 62/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 27/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares 3-7 Year Treasury Bond ETF vs Simplify Bond Bull ETF
IEI leads
IEI leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support IEI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares 3-7 Year Treasury Bond ETF
Simplify Bond Bull ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IEI over RFIX, 59 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. IEI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while RFIX holds the stronger momentum profile. IEI also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IEI today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. IEI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares 3-7 Year Treasury Bond ETF and Simplify Bond Bull ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IEI vs RFIX: 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 | IEI | RFIX | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.5% | IEI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 85 | 9 | IEI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 3.82% | 4.47% | RFIX |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -6.3% | -23.3% | IEI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 3.3% | 27.7% | IEI |
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 IEI and RFIX 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 Resilience84 vs 27IEI +57
- Quality63 vs 43IEI +20
- Value45 vs 36IEI +9
- Momentum56 vs 62RFIX +6
3 of 4 evidence groups favor IEI. IEI’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; RFIX 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 +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +19
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
IEI's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IEI and RFIX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IEI (iShares 3-7 Year Treasury Bond ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
RFIX (Simplify Bond Bull ETF): the counter-case, on momentum — but at materially higher volatility, 28% against 3.7%.
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 | IEI | RFIX | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.5% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 85 | 9 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,834,188 | 380,593 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 3.3% | 27.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.3% | -23.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.74 | -0.66 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.07 | 0.10 | 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
IEI and RFIX share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
83 holdings are unique to IEI, and 7 holdings are unique to RFIX. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What IEI adds that RFIX doesn’t
| Holding | IEI | RFIX |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY NOTE 4.38% 11/30/2030 | 2.94% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 1.88% 02/15/2032 | 2.31% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 4.00% 02/28/2030 | 2.3% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 1.38% 11/15/2031 | 2.28% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 1.25% 08/15/2031 | 2.27% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 4.13% 08/31/2030 | 2.24% | Not held |
What RFIX adds that IEI doesn’t
| Holding | RFIX | IEI |
|---|---|---|
| B 12/31/26 Govt | 37.62% | Not held |
| B 10/15/26 Govt | 24.5% | Not held |
| SWAPTION R 3.00%/SOFR 3/15/32-10Y MS | 11.27% | Not held |
| B 12/3/26 Govt | 6.45% | Not held |
| SWAPTION R 3.00%/SOFR 3/15/32-10Y BOA | 5.77% | Not held |
| SWAPTION R 3.00%/SOFR 3/15/32-10Y GS | 5.6% | 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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IEI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IEI | 59 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IEI | Value 45 vs 36 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.8% vs 0.7%; vs 200-day -2.8% vs -4.2% |
| Risk Resilience | IEI | Risk Resilience 84 vs 27 |
| 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 IEI and RFIX 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 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 IEI.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20IEI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IEI +16
- 59 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- IEI +20
- 57 vs 37
- 30 sessions ago
- IEI +13
- 51 vs 38
- 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 IEI
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.34%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.9%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
IEI 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 -0.04%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.04%, AIQ +5 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.
- 1RFIX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 57 points behind, the largest single contributor to IEI's edge.
- 2RFIX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3IEI'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
IEI leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | IEI | RFIX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.4% | 5.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.4% | -1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2% | -2.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.8% | -5.7% |
| Year to date | -4.5% | 0.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5.3% | -18% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | IEI | RFIX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66.3 | 57.9 |
| ADX (14) | 32.4 | 12.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.8% | 0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.8% | -4.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 3.7% | 28% |
Risk
IEI is the more resilient| Metric | IEI | RFIX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.07 | 0.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.74 | -0.66 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.73 | -1.11 |
| Max drawdown | -6.3% | -23.3% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -19.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 3.3% | 27.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.4% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IEI and RFIX?
IEI holds 85 positions to RFIX's 9, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IEI and RFIX overlap?
IEI and RFIX share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 83 holdings are unique to IEI, and 7 holdings are unique to RFIX. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IEI or RFIX?
IEI holds more positions: 85 versus 9 for RFIX.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IEI has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.5% for RFIX.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
RFIX, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.47% against 3.82% for IEI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
RFIX has been more volatile over the past year, at 27.7% annualized against 3.3% for IEI.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IEI fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -6.3% against -23.3% for RFIX.
Compare IEI and RFIX 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.