TLT vs BIL: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
TLT and BIL are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. TLT is iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF, while BIL is State Street SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF. TLT is broader by holdings count, with 49 positions versus 19 for BIL. BIL is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has TLT ahead on AIQ Score, 59 versus 56.
What is the main difference between TLT and BIL?
TLT and BIL have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | TLT | BIL |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.14% |
| Holdings | 49 | 19 |
| Top-10 concentration | 40.9% | 74.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.86% | 3.66% |
| Average volume | 34,214,729 | 10,157,476 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -12.3% | 0% |
| YTD return | -8.1% | +0.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | -7.8% | +3.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.2% | -0.5% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -43.7% | -0.1% |
| Beta | 0.23 | -0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | -3.80 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.60 | -3.21 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 56/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 60/100 | 56/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 52/100 | 66/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF vs State Street SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF
TLT leads
TLT leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from BIL.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support TLT, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF
State Street SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TLT over BIL, 59 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. TLT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while BIL holds the stronger risk resilience profile. TLT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor TLT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. TLT lead: Reversed — BIL led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TLT now leads by 3.
Compare iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF and State Street SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
TLT vs BIL: 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 | BIL | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.14% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 49 | 19 | TLT |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 40.9% | 74.5% | TLT |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.86% | 3.66% | TLT |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -43.7% | -0.1% | BIL |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 9.6% | 1% | BIL |
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 BIL 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 66BIL +14
- Value45 vs 36TLT +9
- Momentum60 vs 56TLT +4
- Quality75 vs 72Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor TLT. TLT’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; BIL keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
TLT's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TLT and BIL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TLT (iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
BIL (State Street SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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 | TLT | BIL | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.14% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 49 | 19 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 34,214,729 | 10,157,476 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.2% | -0.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | -3.80 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.23 | -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
TLT and BIL share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
47 holdings are unique to TLT, and 17 holdings are unique to BIL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
BIL is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 74.46% of the fund, against 40.94% for TLT (19 holdings vs 49). 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 TLT adds that BIL doesn’t
| Holding | TLT | BIL |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BOND 4.75% 05/15/2055 | 4.53% | Not held |
| TREASURY BOND 4.63% 05/15/2054 | 4.3% | Not held |
| TREASURY BOND 4.13% 08/15/2053 | 4.2% | Not held |
| TREASURY BOND (2OLD) 4.75% 02/15/2056 | 4.15% | Not held |
| TREASURY BOND 4.25% 02/15/2054 | 4.06% | Not held |
| TREASURY BOND (OLD) 5.00% 05/15/2056 | 4.04% | Not held |
What BIL adds that TLT doesn’t
| Holding | BIL | TLT |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BILL 10/26 0.00000 | 10.31% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 10/26 0.00000 | 10.11% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 11/26 0.00000 | 8.49% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 10/26 0.00000 | 7.01% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 10/26 0.00000 | 6.71% | Not held |
| TREASURY BILL 11/26 0.00000 | 6.38% | 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
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor TLT. 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 | 59 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | TLT | Value 45 vs 36 |
| Technicals | BIL | Price vs 50-day -0.5% vs 0.1%; vs 200-day -5.6% vs 0.1% |
| Risk Resilience | BIL | Risk Resilience 52 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 TLT and BIL 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 TLT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TLT lead: Reversed — BIL led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TLT now leads by 3.
- Today
- TLT +3
- 59 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- BIL +12
- 50 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- BIL +6
- 50 vs 56
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when TLT moved ahead of BIL.
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
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.27%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only BIL
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.01%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.2%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.4%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bullish Crossover.
TLT 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 +0.02%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1BIL closes the Value gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to TLT's edge.
- 2BIL's 52-Week Low Proximity resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3TLT'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
BIL leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TLT | BIL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4% | 0% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.4% | 0% |
| Year to date | -8.1% | 0.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.3% | 0% |
Technicals
BIL has the stronger structure| Metric | TLT | BIL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 72.9 | 42.9 |
| ADX (14) | 26.2 | 16.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.5% | 0.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.6% | 0.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.7% | 1% |
Risk
BIL is the more resilient| Metric | TLT | BIL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.23 | -0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | -3.8 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.6 | -3.21 |
| Max drawdown | -16.2% | -0.5% |
| Current drawdown | -13% | -0.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | 0% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between TLT and BIL?
TLT and BIL have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do TLT and BIL overlap?
TLT and BIL share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 47 holdings are unique to TLT, and 17 holdings are unique to BIL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, TLT or BIL?
TLT holds more positions: 49 versus 19 for BIL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 0.15% for TLT and 0.14% for BIL.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
TLT, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.86% against 3.66% for BIL.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
TLT has been more volatile over the past year, at 9.6% annualized against 1% for BIL.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
BIL fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -0.1% against -43.7% for TLT.
Compare TLT and BIL 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.