JPST vs BND: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
JPST and BND are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. JPST is JPMorgan Ultra-Short Income ETF, while BND is Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF. BND is broader by holdings count, with 17,252 positions versus 797 for JPST. JPST is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has BND ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 52.
What is the main difference between JPST and BND?
BND holds 17,252 positions to JPST's 797, and 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | JPST | BND |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 797 | 17,252 |
| Top-10 concentration | 14.1% | 4.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.14% | 4.15% |
| Average volume | 6,857,471 | 9,284,617 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -0.7% | -5.6% |
| YTD return | -0.5% | -4.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +3.9% | -0.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 1.3% | 4.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -1.1% | -7% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -0.6% | -17.4% |
| Beta | 0.01 | 0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.58 | -2.33 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.91 | -3.28 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 52/100 | 62/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 39/100 | 58/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 67/100 | 93/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JPMorgan Ultra-Short Income ETF vs Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF
BND leads
BND leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support BND, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
JPMorgan Ultra-Short Income ETF
Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BND over JPST, 62 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. BND's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. BND also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BND today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. BND lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JPMorgan Ultra-Short Income ETF and Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
JPST vs BND: 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 | BND | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | BND |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 797 | 17,252 | BND |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 14.1% | 4.1% | BND |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.14% | 4.15% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -0.6% | -17.4% | JPST |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 1.3% | 4.1% | 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 BND 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 93BND +26
- Momentum39 vs 58BND +19
- Quality70 vs 76BND +6
- Value36 vs 36Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor BND. BND’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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 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 — JPST and BND both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BND (Vanguard Total Bond Market 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 | BND | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 797 | 17,252 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,857,471 | 9,284,617 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 1.3% | 4.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -1.1% | -7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.58 | -2.33 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.01 | 0.13 | 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 BND share 0.86% of their weighted exposure across 127 common holdings.
669 holdings are unique to JPST, and 17,100 holdings are unique to BND. 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 4.06% for BND (797 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 | JPST | BND | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| UNITED 3.875% 10/27 | 0.24% | 0.2% | 0.2% |
| UNITED 4.125% 09/27 | 0.4% | 0.14% | 0.14% |
| UNITED 3.375% 02/28 | 2.12% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| HSBC HOLDINGS VAR 11/28 | 0.03% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| DEUTSCHE BANK VAR 11/29 | 0.09% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| Deutsche Bank AG/New York NY 6.72% 01/18/2029 | 0.01% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| SPACE 5.35% 07/31 | 0.17% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| MORGAN STANLEY VAR 07/28 | 0.08% | 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 BND doesn’t
| Holding | JPST | BND |
|---|---|---|
| JPMORGAN U.S. GOVERNMENT | 7.23% | Not held |
| UNITED 3.375% 02/28 | 2.12% | 0.1% |
| 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 BND adds that JPST doesn’t
| Holding | BND | JPST |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
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 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 | 52 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 36 |
| Technicals | JPST | Price vs 50-day -0.1% vs -0.8%; vs 200-day -0.3% vs -3.1% |
| Risk Resilience | BND | 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 BND 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 moderate at 10 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 BND.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20BND lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BND +10
- 52 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- BND +8
- 51 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- BND +3
- 51 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when BND 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 BND
- 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.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price 0%, 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 BND's edge.
- 2JPST'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
JPST leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | JPST | BND |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | -0.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.3% | -2.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.4% | -4.1% |
| Year to date | -0.5% | -4.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.7% | -5.6% |
Technicals
JPST has the stronger structure| Metric | JPST | BND |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.9 | 68.5 |
| ADX (14) | 23 | 31.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.1% | -0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.3% | -3.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 1.2% | 5.1% |
Risk
BND is the more resilient| Metric | JPST | BND |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.01 | 0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.58 | -2.33 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.91 | -3.28 |
| Max drawdown | -1.1% | -7% |
| Current drawdown | -0.8% | -5.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 1.3% | 4.1% |
| 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 BND?
BND holds 17,252 positions to JPST's 797, and 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do JPST and BND overlap?
JPST and BND share 0.86% of their weighted exposure across 127 common holdings. 669 holdings are unique to JPST, and 17,100 holdings are unique to BND. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, JPST or BND?
BND holds more positions: 17,252 versus 797 for JPST.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
BND 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 4.15% for BND.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
BND has been more volatile over the past year, at 4.1% 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 -17.4% for BND.
Compare JPST and BND 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.