SRLN vs VCIT: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SRLN and VCIT are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SRLN is State Street Blackstone Senior Loan ETF, while VCIT is Vanguard Intermediate-Term Corporate Bond ETF. VCIT is broader by holdings count, with 2,285 positions versus 717 for SRLN. VCIT has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VCIT ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 45.
What is the main difference between SRLN and VCIT?
VCIT holds 2,285 positions to SRLN's 717.
| Metric | SRLN | VCIT |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.7% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 717 | 2,285 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 7.37% | 5.06% |
| Average volume | 1,902,232 | 9,973,564 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -2.9% | -6.8% |
| YTD return | -3.3% | -5.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +4.7% | +0.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 3.5% | 4.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -4.7% | -8.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -7.9% | -19.7% |
| Beta | 0.14 | 0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.99 | -2.33 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.32 | -3.17 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 45/100 | 62/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 25/100 | 52/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 64/100 | 90/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Blackstone Senior Loan ETF vs Vanguard Intermediate-Term Corporate Bond ETF
VCIT leads
VCIT leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VCIT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street Blackstone Senior Loan ETF
Vanguard Intermediate-Term Corporate Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VCIT over SRLN, 62 versus 45 as of Oct 21, 2026. VCIT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. VCIT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VCIT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. VCIT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 17 points over 30 sessions. VCIT 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 State Street Blackstone Senior Loan ETF and Vanguard Intermediate-Term Corporate Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SRLN vs VCIT: 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 | SRLN | VCIT | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.7% | 0.03% | VCIT |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 717 | 2,285 | VCIT |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 7.37% | 5.06% | SRLN |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -7.9% | -19.7% | SRLN |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 3.5% | 4.6% | SRLN |
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 SRLN and VCIT 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.
- Momentum25 vs 52VCIT +27
- Risk Resilience64 vs 90VCIT +26
- Quality60 vs 73VCIT +13
- Value36 vs 45VCIT +9
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VCIT. VCIT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.00%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
VCIT's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SRLN and VCIT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VCIT (Vanguard Intermediate-Term Corporate Bond ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
SRLN (State Street Blackstone Senior Loan 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 | SRLN | VCIT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.7% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 717 | 2,285 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,902,232 | 9,973,564 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 3.5% | 4.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -4.7% | -8.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.99 | -2.33 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.14 | 0.17 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VCIT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VCIT | 45 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VCIT | Value 36 vs 45 |
| Technicals | SRLN | Price vs 50-day -1.3% vs -1.2%; vs 200-day -1.4% vs -4% |
| Risk Resilience | VCIT | Risk Resilience 64 vs 90 |
| 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 SRLN and VCIT and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 VCIT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VCIT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VCIT +17
- 45 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- VCIT +15
- 45 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- VCIT +7
- 48 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- VCIT +3
- 55 vs 58
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 24 when VCIT moved ahead of SRLN.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SRLN
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VCIT
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week Low Proximity, Downtrend Structure Active.
VCIT 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 -0.03%, 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.
- 1SRLN closes the Momentum gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to VCIT's edge.
- 2SRLN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VCIT'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
SRLN leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SRLN | VCIT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.6% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.1% | -3.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.4% | -5.3% |
| Year to date | -3.3% | -5.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2.9% | -6.8% |
Technicals
SRLN has the stronger structure| Metric | SRLN | VCIT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25 | 62.3 |
| ADX (14) | 48.5 | 30.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.3% | -1.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.4% | -4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 2.8% | 5.7% |
Risk
VCIT is the more resilient| Metric | SRLN | VCIT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.14 | 0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.99 | -2.33 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.32 | -3.17 |
| Max drawdown | -4.7% | -8.1% |
| Current drawdown | -3.9% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 3.5% | 4.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.4% | -0.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SRLN and VCIT?
VCIT holds 2,285 positions to SRLN's 717.
Which ETF is more diversified, SRLN or VCIT?
VCIT holds more positions: 2,285 versus 717 for SRLN.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VCIT has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.7% for SRLN.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SRLN, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 7.37% against 5.06% for VCIT.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VCIT has been more volatile over the past year, at 4.6% annualized against 3.5% for SRLN.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SRLN fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -7.9% against -19.7% for VCIT.
Compare SRLN and VCIT 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.