JPST vs AGG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
JPST and AGG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. JPST is JPMorgan Ultra-Short Income ETF, while AGG is iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF. AGG is broader by holdings count, with 13,395 positions versus 797 for JPST. JPST is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has AGG ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 52.
What is the main difference between JPST and AGG?
AGG holds 13,395 positions to JPST's 797, and 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | JPST | AGG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 797 | 13,395 |
| Top-10 concentration | 14.1% | 3.8% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.14% | 4.16% |
| Average volume | 6,857,471 | 9,555,111 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -0.7% | -5.8% |
| YTD return | -0.5% | -4.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +3.9% | -0.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 1.3% | 4.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -1.1% | -7.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -0.6% | -17.3% |
| Beta | 0.01 | 0.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.58 | -2.29 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.91 | -3.19 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 52/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 39/100 | 55/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 67/100 | 93/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JPMorgan Ultra-Short Income ETF vs iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF
AGG leads
AGG leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 4 evidence groups support AGG, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
JPMorgan Ultra-Short Income ETF
iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AGG over JPST, 64 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. AGG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. AGG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor AGG today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. AGG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 points over 30 sessions. AGG leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare JPMorgan Ultra-Short Income ETF and iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
JPST vs AGG: 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 | JPST | AGG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | AGG |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 797 | 13,395 | AGG |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 14.1% | 3.8% | AGG |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.14% | 4.16% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -0.6% | -17.3% | JPST |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 1.3% | 4.2% | JPST |
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 JPST and AGG 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 Resilience67 vs 93AGG +26
- Momentum39 vs 55AGG +16
- Value36 vs 45AGG +9
- Quality70 vs 75AGG +5
3 of 4 evidence groups favor AGG. AGG’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
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 +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
AGG's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JPST and AGG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AGG (iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
JPST (JPMorgan Ultra-Short Income ETF): the counter-case, on technicals.
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 | JPST | AGG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 797 | 13,395 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,857,471 | 9,555,111 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 1.3% | 4.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -1.1% | -7.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.58 | -2.29 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.01 | 0.14 | 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
JPST and AGG share 1.09% of their weighted exposure across 122 common holdings.
674 holdings are unique to JPST, and 13,238 holdings are unique to AGG. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
JPST is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 14.13% of the fund, against 3.79% for AGG (797 holdings vs 13,395). 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 | JPST | AGG | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| UNITED 3.375% 02/28 | 2.12% | 0.25% | 0.25% |
| UNITED 3.875% 10/27 | 0.24% | 0.23% | 0.23% |
| UNITED 4.125% 09/27 | 0.4% | 0.19% | 0.19% |
| SPACE 5.35% 07/31 | 0.17% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| GOLDMAN SACHS VAR 01/29 | 0.23% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| DEUTSCHE BANK VAR 11/29 | 0.09% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| HSBC HOLDINGS VAR 03/30 | 0.1% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| ORACLE CORP 4.8% 08/28 | 0.14% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What JPST adds that AGG doesn’t
| Holding | JPST | AGG |
|---|---|---|
| JPMORGAN U.S. GOVERNMENT | 7.23% | Not held |
| UNITED 3.375% 02/28 | 2.12% | 0.25% |
| WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, L | 1.06% | Not held |
| UNITED 0.875% 09/26 | 0.65% | Not held |
| CAPITAL ONE VAR 11/27 | 0.55% | Not held |
| FIRST ABU DHABI 0% 11/26 | 0.54% | Not held |
What AGG adds that JPST doesn’t
| Holding | AGG | JPST |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY NOTE (OLD) 4.38% 05/15/2036 | 0.39% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 4.63% 02/15/2035 | 0.39% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 4.25% 11/15/2034 | 0.39% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 4.38% 05/15/2034 | 0.38% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 4.00% 02/28/2030 | 0.38% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 3.88% 08/15/2034 | 0.37% | 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 AGG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AGG | 52 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | AGG | Value 36 vs 45 |
| Technicals | JPST | Price vs 50-day -0.1% vs -0.8%; vs 200-day -0.3% vs -3.2% |
| Risk Resilience | AGG | Risk Resilience 67 vs 93 |
| 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 JPST and AGG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 AGG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20AGG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AGG +12
- 52 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- AGG +11
- 51 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- AGG +5
- 51 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- AGG +2
- 56 vs 58
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 3 when AGG moved ahead of JPST.
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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only JPST
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.8%)
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only AGG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week Low Proximity, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
AGG 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.03%, 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.
- 1JPST closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to AGG's edge.
- 2JPST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AGG'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
JPST leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | JPST | AGG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | -1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.3% | -2.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.4% | -4.2% |
| Year to date | -0.5% | -4.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.7% | -5.8% |
Technicals
JPST has the stronger structure| Metric | JPST | AGG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.9 | 65.7 |
| ADX (14) | 23 | 30.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.1% | -0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.3% | -3.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 1.2% | 5.1% |
Risk
AGG is the more resilient| Metric | JPST | AGG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.01 | 0.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.58 | -2.29 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.91 | -3.19 |
| Max drawdown | -1.1% | -7.2% |
| Current drawdown | -0.8% | -6% |
| Annualized volatility | 1.3% | 4.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.1% | -0.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between JPST and AGG?
AGG holds 13,395 positions to JPST's 797, and 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do JPST and AGG overlap?
JPST and AGG share 1.09% of their weighted exposure across 122 common holdings. 674 holdings are unique to JPST, and 13,238 holdings are unique to AGG. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, JPST or AGG?
AGG holds more positions: 13,395 versus 797 for JPST.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
AGG has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.18% for JPST.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 4.14% for JPST and 4.16% for AGG.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
AGG has been more volatile over the past year, at 4.2% annualized against 1.3% for JPST.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
JPST fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -0.6% against -17.3% for AGG.
Compare JPST and AGG 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.