SHV vs TBIL ETF Comparison
Compare SHV and TBIL across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between SHV and TBIL?
SHV is iShares Trust iShares 0-1 Year Treasury Bond ETF, while TBIL is F/m US Treasury 3 Month Bill Fund. SHV is tied to Fixed Income; TBIL is tied to Fixed Income. SHV is broader by holdings count, with 14 positions versus 3 for TBIL. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SHV ahead on AIQ Score, 50 versus 47.
| Metric | SHV | TBIL | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.15% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $20.9B | $7.2B | Fund |
| Holdings | 14 | 3 | Fund |
| Average volume | 7,047,604 | 1,129,419 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Fixed Income | Fixed Income | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 1.1% | 1.1% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -0.4% | -0.4% | Risk |
| Beta | 0.00 | 0.00 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.78 | -3.62 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | -3.05 | -2.78 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 50/100 | 47/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 3/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 28/100 | 32/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 66/100 | 66/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Trust iShares 0-1 Year Treasury Bond ETF vs F/m US Treasury 3 Month Bill Fund
SHV leads
SHV leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support SHV, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Trust iShares 0-1 Year Treasury Bond ETF
F/m US Treasury 3 Month Bill Fund
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SHV over TBIL, 50 versus 47 as of Sep 5, 2026. SHV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while TBIL holds the stronger momentum profile. SHV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SHV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. SHV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Trust iShares 0-1 Year Treasury Bond ETF and F/m US Treasury 3 Month Bill Fund across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare SHV and TBIL 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.
- Value30%45 vs 36SHV +9
- Quality30%65 vs 60SHV +5
- Momentum25%28 vs 32TBIL +4
- Risk Resilience15%66 vs 66Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor SHV. SHV’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; TBIL keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
SHV's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SHV and TBIL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SHV (iShares Trust iShares 0-1 Year Treasury Bond ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
TBIL (F/m US Treasury 3 Month Bill Fund): the counter-case, on momentum.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
SHVSHV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
SHVSHV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
TBILTBIL on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | TBIL | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $20.9B | $7.2B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 14 | 3 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 7,047,604 | 1,129,419 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 1.1% | 1.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -0.4% | -0.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.78 | -3.62 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.00 | 0.00 | 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.
Weighted holdings overlap is not available for this pair. Sector exposure above is a related but different measure — it says how much of each fund sits in the same parts of the market, not how much of the same securities they hold.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, SHV or TBIL?
SHV currently has more reported holdings, with 14 positions versus 3.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The current fund profile does not show a lower-cost winner.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
TBIL has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
TBIL has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
SHV currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 50 to 47.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SHV. 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 | 50 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SHV | Value 45 vs 36 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.1% vs 0%; vs 200-day -0.1% 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 TBIL 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 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 SHV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3SHV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SHV +3
- 50 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- SHV +15
- 62 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 52 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- SHV +16
- 63 vs 47
The lead changed hands 11 times in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when SHV moved ahead of TBIL.
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.
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.01%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.4%)
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.01%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.3%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
SHV 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 +0.05%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.04%, 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.
- 1TBIL closes the Value gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to SHV's edge.
- 2TBIL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SHV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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.
Technicals
Split| Metric | SHV | TBIL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.1 | 38.5 |
| ADX (14) | 24.7 | 25.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.1% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.1% | -0.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 1.1% | 1.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | SHV | TBIL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0 | 0 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.78 | -3.62 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.05 | -2.78 |
| Max drawdown | -0.4% | -0.4% |
| Current drawdown | -0.4% | -0.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 1.1% | 1.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | 0% | 0% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SHV or TBIL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SHV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 50 against TBIL's 47. The edge comes from value and quality. TBIL is not without a case — it holds the better momentum profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is SHV or TBIL the better buy right now?
SHV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SHV over TBIL?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SHV leads Value by 9 points; SHV leads Quality by 5 points; TBIL leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, SHV or TBIL?
SHV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SHV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, SHV or TBIL?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, SHV or TBIL?
TBIL on the Momentum factor, by 4 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, SHV or TBIL?
The two are close on downside measures. Downside measures are level or not covered. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is SHV more profitable than TBIL?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is SHV's lead over TBIL getting stronger or weaker?
SHV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 11 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when SHV moved ahead of TBIL.
What would change the SHV vs TBIL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TBIL closes the Value gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to SHV's edge; TBIL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SHV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about SHV and TBIL?
SHV: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. TBIL: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on SHV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TBIL it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare SHV and TBIL with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.