TLT vs AGG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
TLT and AGG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. TLT is iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF, while AGG is iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF. AGG is broader by holdings count, with 13,395 positions versus 49 for TLT. TLT is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has AGG ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 59.
What is the main difference between TLT and AGG?
AGG holds 13,395 positions to TLT's 49, and 5% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | TLT | AGG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 49 | 13,395 |
| Top-10 concentration | 40.9% | 3.8% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.86% | 4.16% |
| Average volume | 34,214,729 | 9,555,111 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -12.3% | -5.8% |
| YTD return | -8.1% | -4.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | -7.8% | -0.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 4.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.2% | -7.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -43.7% | -17.3% |
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | -2.29 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.60 | -3.19 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 60/100 | 55/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 52/100 | 93/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF vs iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF
AGG leads
AGG leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support AGG, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF
iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AGG over TLT, 64 versus 59 as of Oct 21, 2026. AGG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while TLT holds the stronger momentum profile. AGG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor AGG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. AGG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF and iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
TLT vs AGG: 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 | TLT | AGG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.03% | AGG |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 49 | 13,395 | AGG |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 40.9% | 3.8% | AGG |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.86% | 4.16% | TLT |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -43.7% | -17.3% | AGG |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 9.6% | 4.2% | AGG |
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 TLT and AGG 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 Resilience52 vs 93AGG +41
- Momentum60 vs 55TLT +5
- Quality75 vs 75Even
- Value45 vs 45Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor AGG. AGG’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; TLT keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 +7
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
AGG's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TLT and AGG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AGG (iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
TLT (iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF): the counter-case, on momentum — but at materially higher volatility, 11.7% against 5.1%.
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 | TLT | AGG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 49 | 13,395 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 34,214,729 | 9,555,111 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 4.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.2% | -7.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | -2.29 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.14 | 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
TLT and AGG share 5.05% of their weighted exposure across 47 common holdings.
Every TLT holding is also in AGG, and 13,313 holdings are unique to AGG. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
TLT is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 40.94% of the fund, against 3.79% for AGG (49 holdings vs 13,395). 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 | TLT | AGG | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BOND (OLD) 5.00% 05/15/2056 | 4.04% | 0.23% | 0.23% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.75% 11/15/2053 | 4% | 0.2% | 0.2% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.63% 11/15/2055 | 3.87% | 0.2% | 0.2% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.75% 05/15/2055 | 4.53% | 0.2% | 0.2% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.75% 08/15/2055 | 3.44% | 0.2% | 0.2% |
| TREASURY BOND (2OLD) 4.75% 02/15/2056 | 4.15% | 0.19% | 0.19% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.63% 02/15/2055 | 3.82% | 0.19% | 0.19% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.63% 05/15/2054 | 4.3% | 0.19% | 0.19% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What TLT adds that AGG doesn’t
| Holding | TLT | AGG |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BOND 4.75% 05/15/2055 | 4.53% | 0.2% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.63% 05/15/2054 | 4.3% | 0.19% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.13% 08/15/2053 | 4.2% | 0.16% |
| TREASURY BOND (2OLD) 4.75% 02/15/2056 | 4.15% | 0.19% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.25% 02/15/2054 | 4.06% | 0.18% |
| TREASURY BOND (OLD) 5.00% 05/15/2056 | 4.04% | 0.23% |
What AGG adds that TLT doesn’t
| Holding | AGG | TLT |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY NOTE (OLD) 4.38% 05/15/2036 | 0.39% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 4.63% 02/15/2035 | 0.39% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 4.25% 11/15/2034 | 0.39% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 4.38% 05/15/2034 | 0.38% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 4.00% 02/28/2030 | 0.38% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 3.88% 08/15/2034 | 0.37% | 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 AGG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AGG | 59 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 45 vs 45 |
| Technicals | AGG | Price vs 50-day -0.5% vs -0.8%; vs 200-day -5.6% vs -3.2% |
| Risk Resilience | AGG | Risk Resilience 52 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 TLT and AGG 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 5 points. (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 AGG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20AGG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AGG +5
- 59 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- AGG +6
- 56 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- AGG +6
- 50 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- AGG +8
- 50 vs 58
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 22 when AGG moved ahead of TLT.
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 / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only TLT
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only AGG
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.4%)
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
AGG 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.14%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1TLT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to AGG's edge.
- 2TLT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AGG'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
AGG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TLT | AGG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2% | -1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4% | -2.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.4% | -4.2% |
| Year to date | -8.1% | -4.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.3% | -5.8% |
Technicals
AGG has the stronger structure| Metric | TLT | AGG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 72.9 | 65.7 |
| ADX (14) | 26.2 | 30.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.5% | -0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.6% | -3.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.7% | 5.1% |
Risk
AGG is the more resilient| Metric | TLT | AGG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | -2.29 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.6 | -3.19 |
| Max drawdown | -16.2% | -7.2% |
| Current drawdown | -13% | -6% |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 4.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -0.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between TLT and AGG?
AGG holds 13,395 positions to TLT's 49, and 5% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do TLT and AGG overlap?
TLT and AGG share 5.05% of their weighted exposure across 47 common holdings. Every TLT holding is also in AGG, and 13,313 holdings are unique to AGG. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, TLT or AGG?
AGG holds more positions: 13,395 versus 49 for TLT.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
AGG has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.15% for TLT.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
TLT, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.86% against 4.16% for AGG.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
TLT has been more volatile over the past year, at 9.6% annualized against 4.2% for AGG.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
AGG fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -17.3% against -43.7% for TLT.
Compare TLT and AGG 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.