SGOV vs TLTW: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SGOV and TLTW are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SGOV is iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF, while TLTW is iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF. TLTW is broader by holdings count, with 50 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 50.
What is the main difference between SGOV and TLTW?
SGOV and TLTW have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SGOV | TLTW |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 24 | 50 |
| Top-10 concentration | 61.2% | 40.9% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 3.64% | 11.55% |
| Average volume | 20,897,619 | 1,580,038 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +0.1% | -13.3% |
| YTD return | +0.2% | -8.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 1% | 8.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -0.4% | -17.4% |
| Beta | -0.01 | 0.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.85 | -2.02 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.24 | -2.99 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 50/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 55/100 | 53/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 66/100 | 63/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF vs iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF
SGOV leads
SGOV leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 23 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support SGOV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SGOV over TLTW, 60 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. SGOV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. SGOV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SGOV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. SGOV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SGOV vs TLTW: 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 | SGOV | TLTW | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.09% | 0.35% | SGOV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 24 | 50 | TLTW |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 61.2% | 40.9% | TLTW |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 3.64% | 11.55% | TLTW |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -0.4% | -17.4% | SGOV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 1% | 8.8% | SGOV |
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 SGOV and TLTW 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.
- Quality76 vs 56SGOV +20
- Value45 vs 36SGOV +9
- Risk Resilience66 vs 63Even
- Momentum55 vs 53Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor SGOV. SGOV’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
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
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
SGOV's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SGOV and TLTW 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 | SGOV | TLTW | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 24 | 50 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 20,897,619 | 1,580,038 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 1% | 8.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -0.4% | -17.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.85 | -2.02 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.01 | 0.23 | 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
SGOV and TLTW share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
22 holdings are unique to SGOV, and 47 holdings are unique to TLTW. 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 40.87% for TLTW (24 holdings vs 50). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
What SGOV adds that TLTW doesn’t
| Holding | SGOV | TLTW |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BILL 10/20/2026 | 9.4% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 09/22/2026 | 7.93% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 10/13/2026 | 7.86% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 09/29/2026 | 6.3% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 10/27/2026 | 6.29% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 09/15/2026 | 5.58% | Not held |
What TLTW adds that SGOV doesn’t
| Holding | TLTW | SGOV |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BOND 4.75% 05/15/2055 | 4.52% | Not held |
| TREASURY BOND 4.63% 05/15/2054 | 4.29% | Not held |
| TREASURY BOND 4.13% 08/15/2053 | 4.2% | Not held |
| TREASURY BOND (2OLD) 4.75% 02/15/2056 | 4.14% | Not held |
| TREASURY BOND 4.25% 02/15/2054 | 4.05% | Not held |
| TREASURY BOND (OLD) 5.00% 05/15/2056 | 4.04% | 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 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 | SGOV | 60 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SGOV | Value 45 vs 36 |
| Technicals | SGOV | Price vs 50-day 0.1% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day 0.1% vs -6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 66 vs 63 |
| 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 SGOV and TLTW 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.
- 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 SGOV.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20SGOV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SGOV +10
- 60 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- SGOV +11
- 59 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- SGOV +23
- 66 vs 43
- 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.
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 Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.3%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only TLTW
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.61%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling, 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 +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.29%, 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.
- 1TLTW closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to SGOV's edge.
- 2TLTW'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.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 13 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate SGOV'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
SGOV leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | SGOV | TLTW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0% | -4.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0% | -8% |
| Year to date | 0.2% | -8.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.1% | -13.3% |
Technicals
SGOV has the stronger structure| Metric | SGOV | TLTW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.6 | 63.3 |
| ADX (14) | 16.2 | 26.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.1% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.1% | -6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 1% | 12.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | SGOV | TLTW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.01 | 0.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.85 | -2.02 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.24 | -2.99 |
| Max drawdown | -0.4% | -17.4% |
| Current drawdown | -0.1% | -14.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 1% | 8.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | 0% | -1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SGOV and TLTW?
SGOV and TLTW have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SGOV and TLTW overlap?
SGOV and TLTW share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 22 holdings are unique to SGOV, and 47 holdings are unique to TLTW. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SGOV or TLTW?
TLTW holds more positions: 50 versus 24 for SGOV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SGOV has the lower expense ratio, 0.09% a year against 0.35% for TLTW.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
TLTW, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 11.55% against 3.64% for SGOV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
TLTW has been more volatile over the past year, at 8.8% annualized against 1% for SGOV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SGOV fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -0.4% against -17.4% for TLTW.
Compare SGOV and TLTW 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.