IUSB vs VXUS: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk

IUSB and VXUS are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IUSB is iShares Core Universal USD Bond ETF, while VXUS is Vanguard Total International Stock ETF. IUSB is broader by holdings count, with 18,133 positions versus 8,821 for VXUS. VXUS is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VXUS ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 60.

Market data as of Oct 21, 2026 market close· Fund characteristics as of Oct 21, 2026
IUSB
IShares
vs
VXUS
Vanguard
IUSB
iShares Core Universal USD Bond ETF
Issuer
IShares
Inception
2014-06-10
VXUS
Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
Issuer
Vanguard
Inception
2011-01-26

What is the main difference between IUSB and VXUS?

IUSB and VXUS have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.

Expense ratio
IUSB
0.06%
VXUS
0.05%
Lower annual fund costVXUS
Holdings
IUSB
18,133
VXUS
8,821
Broader reported basketIUSB
1Y return
IUSB
-5.5%
VXUS
+12.8%
Trailing performanceVXUS
Annualized volatility
IUSB
4%
VXUS
17.2%
Lower realized volatilityIUSB
MetricIUSBVXUS
Fund
Expense ratio0.06%0.05%
Holdings18,1338,821
Top-10 concentration3.5%12.9%
Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months4.37%2.37%
Average volume5,777,9055,459,776
Performance
1Y return-5.5%+12.8%
YTD return-4.6%+11%
5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested+0%+8.3%
Risk
Annualized volatility4%17.2%
Max drawdown (1Y)-7%-11.4%
Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested-17.4%-28.9%
Beta0.131.11
Sharpe ratio-2.360.56
Sortino ratio-3.310.83
AlgovestIQ
AIQ Score60/10063/100
AIQ Edge Score8/109/10
Momentum56/10041/100
Risk Resilience92/10082/100

AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison

iShares Core Universal USD Bond ETF vs Vanguard Total International Stock ETF

Data as of Oct 21, 2026· market close· Coverage 64/66 fields· High confidence
AIQ VerdictFragileAIQ Comparison Conviction 3/10

VXUS leads

VXUS leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions.

Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support VXUS, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.

Evidence agreement: 2 of 4Comparison trend: Weakening
IUSB

iShares Core Universal USD Bond ETF

AIQ Score
60/100
AIQ Edge Score
8/10
VXUS

Vanguard Total International Stock ETF

Leads
AIQ Score
63/100
AIQ Edge Score
9/10

The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VXUS over IUSB, 63 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. VXUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while IUSB holds the stronger momentum profile. VXUS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VXUS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. VXUS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 3 points over 30 sessions.

Compare iShares Core Universal USD Bond ETF and Vanguard Total International Stock ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.

IUSB vs VXUS: 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 wantIUSBVXUSFits
Lower costExpense ratio0.06%0.05%Similar
Broader diversificationNumber of holdings18,1338,821IUSB
Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings3.5%12.9%IUSB
Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield4.37%2.37%IUSB
Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years-17.4%-28.9%IUSB
Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year4%17.2%IUSB

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.

Currently unavailable

Performance over time

Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.

IUSB
+0.2%
VXUS
+48.9%

Total return comparison

Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested

IUSB $10,016 · VXUS $14,887

Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.

Compare IUSB and VXUS against another ticker

Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.

Basic: 2 symbols·Explorer: 3 symbols·Pro and Premium: 5 symbols·Your limit: 2

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.

IUSB advantage
0
VXUS advantage
  • Value36 vs 59
    VXUS +23
  • Momentum56 vs 41
    IUSB +15
  • Risk Resilience92 vs 82
    IUSB +10
  • Quality70 vs 76
    VXUS +6

2 of 4 evidence groups favor VXUS. VXUS’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; IUSB 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.

IUSB+2 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum +6

No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.

VXUS+1 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum +6

No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.

VXUS's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.

Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IUSB and VXUS both carry a full feed there.

The central trade-off

VXUS (Vanguard Total International Stock ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.

IUSB (iShares Core Universal USD Bond ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience.

Fund facts, side by side

Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.

MeasureIUSBVXUSWhy it matters
Expense ratio0.06%0.05%Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold.
Holdings18,1338,821More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns.
Average volume5,777,9055,459,776Liquidity — matters most if you trade size.
Annualized volatility4%17.2%Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure.
Max drawdown (1Y)-7%-11.4%The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year.
Sharpe ratio-2.360.56Return per unit of risk. Higher is better.
Beta0.131.11Sensitivity 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.

Treasury40.2% vs 0.0%
MBS Pass-Through19.5% vs 0.0%
Industrial18.2% vs 0.0%
Financial Institutions9.9% vs 0.0%
Sovereign3.3% vs 0.0%
Utility2.7% vs 0.0%
Agency2.4% vs 0.0%
CMBS1.2% vs 0.0%
IUSBVXUS

How much of the same holdings they own

IUSB and VXUS share 0% of their weighted exposure across 3 common holdings.

18,106 holdings are unique to IUSB, and 8,278 holdings are unique to VXUS. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.

VXUS is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 12.94% of the fund, against 3.45% for IUSB (8,821 holdings vs 18,133). 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

HoldingIUSBVXUSShared
ARGENTINA REPUBLIC OF GOVERNMENT 4.13% 07/09/20350.04%0%0%
ARGENTINA REPUBLIC OF GOVERNMENT 5.00% 01/09/20380.02%0%0%
ARGENTINA REPUBLIC OF GOVERNMENT 3.50% 07/09/20410.02%0%0%

Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.

What IUSB adds that VXUS doesn’t

HoldingIUSBVXUS
TREASURY NOTE 4.00% 11/15/20350.45%Not held
TREASURY NOTE 4.25% 05/15/20350.35%Not held
TREASURY NOTE 4.38% 12/31/20290.35%Not held
TREASURY NOTE (OLD) 4.38% 05/15/20360.34%Not held
TREASURY NOTE (2OLD) 4.13% 06/30/20310.34%Not held
TREASURY NOTE 4.25% 11/15/20340.33%Not held

What VXUS adds that IUSB doesn’t

HoldingVXUSIUSB
2330.TWTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd4.02%Not held
005930.KSSamsung Electronics Co Ltd1.8%Not held
ASML.ASASML Holding NV1.42%Not held
000660.KSSK hynix Inc1.41%Not held
0700.HKTencent Holdings Ltd0.85%Not held
HSBA.LHSBC Holdings PLC0.82%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

2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VXUS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.

Evidence groupFavorsReading
AIQ ScoreEven60 vs 63
FundamentalsNot coveredNot covered
ValuationVXUSValue 36 vs 59
TechnicalsVXUSPrice vs 50-day -0.9% vs -2.6%; vs 200-day -3.2% vs 0.6%
Risk ResilienceIUSBRisk Resilience 92 vs 82
Analyst expectationsNot coveredNot covered

✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IUSB and VXUS and are excluded from the count.

AIQ Decision Stability

Fragile

The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.

  • The AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
  • Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
  • The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
  • 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 VXUS.

How the comparison changed

120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20

VXUS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 3 points over 30 sessions.

Jun 21IUSB leads above the line · VXUS leads belowOct 20
Today
VXUS +3
60 vs 63
7 sessions ago
VXUS +4
57 vs 61
30 sessions ago
VXUS +10
52 vs 62
90 sessions ago
VXUS +17
54 vs 71

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.

IUSBConflicted

1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted

Only IUSB

  • Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.33%)
  • 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.4%)
  • Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
  • MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
VXUSConflicted

1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted

Only VXUS

  • Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
  • Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.63%)
  • MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon

Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling.

VXUS 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.

IUSBNo material change

Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.02%, AIQ +2 points).

VXUSConfirmed strength

Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.31%, 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.

  1. 1IUSB closes the Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to VXUS's edge.
  2. 2IUSB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
  3. 3VXUS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
  4. 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate VXUS's advantage entirely.

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

VXUS leads 4 of 6 windows
MetricIUSBVXUS
1 week (5 sessions)0.5%-0.9%
1 month (20 sessions)-1.1%-4.3%
3 months (63 sessions)-2.4%-0.9%
6 months (126 sessions)-4.2%2.3%
Year to date-4.6%11%
1 year (252 sessions)-5.5%12.8%

Technicals

VXUS has the stronger structure
MetricIUSBVXUS
RSI (14)6741.4
ADX (14)29.419.9
Price vs 50-day-0.9%-2.6%
Price vs 200-day-3.2%0.6%
Volatility (1M, annualized)4.9%12.1%

Risk

IUSB is the more resilient
MetricIUSBVXUS
Beta0.131.11
Sharpe ratio-2.360.56
Sortino ratio-3.310.83
Max drawdown-7%-11.4%
Current drawdown-5.9%-5.3%
Annualized volatility4%17.2%
Value at risk (95%)-0.5%-1.7%

Straight answers

Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.

What is the difference between IUSB and VXUS?

IUSB and VXUS have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.

How much do IUSB and VXUS overlap?

IUSB and VXUS share 0% of their weighted exposure across 3 common holdings. 18,106 holdings are unique to IUSB, and 8,278 holdings are unique to VXUS. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.

Which ETF is more diversified, IUSB or VXUS?

IUSB holds more positions: 18,133 versus 8,821 for VXUS.

Which has the lower expense ratio?

The two are within a basis point: 0.06% for IUSB and 0.05% for VXUS.

Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?

IUSB, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.37% against 2.37% for VXUS.

Which ETF has been more volatile?

VXUS has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.2% annualized against 4% for IUSB.

Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?

IUSB fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -17.4% against -28.9% for VXUS.

Compare IUSB and VXUS 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.