SHV vs SGOV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SHV and SGOV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SHV is iShares Trust iShares 0-1 Year Treasury Bond ETF, while SGOV is iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF. SHV is broader by holdings count, with 67 positions versus 24 for SGOV. SGOV is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SGOV ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 57.
What is the main difference between SHV and SGOV?
SHV and SGOV both concentrate in U.S. Treasury Debt, at 100% and 100% of assets, and 36% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SHV | SGOV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.09% |
| Holdings | 67 | 24 |
| Top-10 concentration | 34.5% | 61.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 3.63% | 3.64% |
| Average volume | 3,044,022 | 20,897,619 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | 0% | +0.1% |
| YTD return | +0.1% | +0.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +3.6% | +3.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 1% | 1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -0.4% | -0.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -0.4% | 0% |
| Beta | 0.00 | -0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.88 | -3.85 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.16 | -3.24 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 57/100 | 55/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 66/100 | 66/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Trust iShares 0-1 Year Treasury Bond ETF vs iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF
SGOV leads
SGOV leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 0 of 4 evidence groups support SGOV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Trust iShares 0-1 Year Treasury Bond ETF
iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SGOV over SHV, 60 versus 57 as of Oct 21, 2026. SGOV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. SGOV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SGOV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. SGOV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Trust iShares 0-1 Year Treasury Bond ETF and iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SHV vs SGOV: 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 | SHV | SGOV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.09% | SGOV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 67 | 24 | SHV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 34.5% | 61.2% | SHV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 3.63% | 3.64% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -0.4% | 0% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 1% | 1% | Similar |
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 SHV and SGOV 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.
- Quality66 vs 76SGOV +10
- Momentum57 vs 55Even
- Value45 vs 45Even
- Risk Resilience66 vs 66Even
0 of 4 evidence groups favor SGOV. SGOV’s edge is concentrated in 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 +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
SGOV's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SHV and SGOV 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 | SHV | SGOV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.09% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 67 | 24 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,044,022 | 20,897,619 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 1% | 1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -0.4% | -0.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.88 | -3.85 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.00 | -0.01 | 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
SHV and SGOV share 35.86% of their weighted exposure across 22 common holdings.
43 holdings are unique to SHV, and every SGOV holding is also in SHV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SGOV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 61.2% of the fund, against 34.49% for SHV (24 holdings vs 67). 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 | SHV | SGOV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BILL 10/29/2026 | 4.19% | 4.79% | 4.19% |
| TREASURY BILL 10/13/2026 | 3.57% | 7.86% | 3.57% |
| TREASURY BILL 10/27/2026 | 3.29% | 6.29% | 3.29% |
| TREASURY BILL 10/01/2026 | 3.12% | 4.62% | 3.12% |
| TREASURY BILL 09/15/2026 | 2.69% | 5.58% | 2.69% |
| TREASURY BILL 09/22/2026 | 2.58% | 7.93% | 2.58% |
| TREASURY BILL 11/27/2026 | 2.54% | 3.39% | 2.54% |
| TREASURY BILL 11/12/2026 | 3.08% | 2.16% | 2.16% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SHV adds that SGOV doesn’t
| Holding | SHV | SGOV |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BILL 01/14/2027 | 4.58% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 12/15/2026 | 3.33% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 12/22/2026 | 3.29% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 01/07/2027 | 3.05% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 12/31/2026 | 2.98% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 01/12/2027 | 2.82% | Not held |
What SGOV adds that SHV doesn’t
| Holding | SGOV | SHV |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BILL 10/20/2026 | 9.4% | 1.68% |
| TREASURY BILL 09/22/2026 | 7.93% | 2.58% |
| TREASURY BILL 10/13/2026 | 7.86% | 3.57% |
| TREASURY BILL 09/29/2026 | 6.3% | 1.67% |
| TREASURY BILL 09/15/2026 | 5.58% | 2.69% |
| TREASURY BILL 10/06/2026 | 4.36% | 0.23% |
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
0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SGOV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 57 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 45 vs 45 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.1% vs 0.1%; vs 200-day 0% vs 0.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 66 vs 66 |
| 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 SHV and SGOV 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 narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 SGOV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SGOV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SGOV +3
- 57 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- SGOV +4
- 55 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- SGOV +4
- 62 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- SGOV +2
- 57 vs 59
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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SHV
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.02%)
6 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SGOV
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.02%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Compression, 52-Week High Proximity, 52-Week Low Proximity, MACD Bullish Crossover.
SGOV 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 +0.01%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.01%, 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.
- 1SHV closes the Quality gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to SGOV's edge.
- 2SHV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SGOV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 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
SGOV leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | SHV | SGOV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0% | 0% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0% | 0% |
| Year to date | 0.1% | 0.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0% | 0.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | SHV | SGOV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.8 | 42.6 |
| ADX (14) | 19.8 | 16.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0% | 0.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 0.9% | 1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | SHV | SGOV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0 | -0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.88 | -3.85 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.16 | -3.24 |
| Max drawdown | -0.4% | -0.4% |
| Current drawdown | -0.2% | -0.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 1% | 1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | 0% | 0% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SHV and SGOV?
SHV and SGOV both concentrate in U.S. Treasury Debt, at 100% and 100% of assets, and 36% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SHV and SGOV overlap?
SHV and SGOV share 35.86% of their weighted exposure across 22 common holdings. 43 holdings are unique to SHV, and every SGOV holding is also in SHV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SHV or SGOV?
SHV holds more positions: 67 versus 24 for SGOV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SGOV has the lower expense ratio, 0.09% a year against 0.15% for SHV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 3.63% for SHV and 3.64% for SGOV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 1% annualized for SHV and 1% for SGOV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -0.4% for SHV and 0% for SGOV.
Compare SHV and SGOV 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.