TLT vs TBIL: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
TLT and TBIL are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. TLT is iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF, while TBIL is F/m US Treasury 3 Month Bill Fund. TLT is broader by holdings count, with 49 positions versus 4 for TBIL. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has TLT ahead on AIQ Score, 59 versus 58.
What is the main difference between TLT and TBIL?
TLT holds 49 positions to TBIL's 4, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | TLT | TBIL |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 49 | 4 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.86% | 3.63% |
| Average volume | 34,214,729 | 1,911,664 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -12.3% | +0% |
| YTD return | -8.1% | +0.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 1.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.2% | -0.4% |
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | -3.67 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.60 | -2.80 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 58/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 60/100 | 78/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 52/100 | 66/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF vs F/m US Treasury 3 Month Bill Fund
TLT leads
TLT leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support TLT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF
F/m US Treasury 3 Month Bill Fund
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TLT over TBIL, 59 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. TLT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while TBIL holds the stronger momentum 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 1 points. TLT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares 20+ 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.
TLT vs TBIL: 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 | TBIL | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.15% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 49 | 4 | TLT |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.86% | 3.63% | TLT |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -16.2% | -0.4% | TBIL |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 9.6% | 1.1% | TBIL |
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 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.
- Momentum60 vs 78TBIL +18
- Quality75 vs 61TLT +14
- Risk Resilience52 vs 66TBIL +14
- Value45 vs 36TLT +9
1 of 4 evidence groups favor TLT. TLT’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; TBIL 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
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: TLT moved ahead of TBIL in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TLT and TBIL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TLT (iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
TBIL (F/m US Treasury 3 Month Bill Fund): the counter-case, on momentum, 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 | TBIL | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 49 | 4 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 34,214,729 | 1,911,664 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 1.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.2% | -0.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | -3.67 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.23 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
TLT and TBIL share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
47 holdings are unique to TLT, and 3 holdings are unique to TBIL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What TLT adds that TBIL doesn’t
| Holding | TLT | TBIL |
|---|---|---|
| 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 TBIL adds that TLT doesn’t
| Holding | TBIL | TLT |
|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Bill 11/27/2026 | 54.85% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Bill 12/03/2026 | 23.54% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Bill 12/10/2026 | 21.6% | 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 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | TLT | Value 45 vs 36 |
| Technicals | TBIL | Price vs 50-day -0.5% vs 0.1%; vs 200-day -5.6% vs 0.1% |
| Risk Resilience | TBIL | 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 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 1 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 narrowing. (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 TLT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TLT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TLT +1
- 59 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- TLT +4
- 56 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- TLT +4
- 50 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- TBIL +8
- 50 vs 58
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when TLT 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 / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only TLT
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only TBIL
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.3%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, RSI Overbought, 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.
- 1TBIL closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to TLT's edge.
- 2TBIL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TLT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate TLT'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
TBIL leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TLT | TBIL |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | 0.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.3% | 0% |
Technicals
TBIL has the stronger structure| Metric | TLT | TBIL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 72.9 | 100 |
| ADX (14) | 26.2 | 17.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.5% | 0.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.6% | 0.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.7% | 1.1% |
Risk
TBIL is the more resilient| Metric | TLT | TBIL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.23 | 0 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | -3.67 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.6 | -2.8 |
| Max drawdown | -16.2% | -0.4% |
| Current drawdown | -13% | -0.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 1.1% |
| 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 TBIL?
TLT holds 49 positions to TBIL's 4, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do TLT and TBIL overlap?
TLT and TBIL share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 47 holdings are unique to TLT, and 3 holdings are unique to TBIL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, TLT or TBIL?
TLT holds more positions: 49 versus 4 for TBIL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.15% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
TLT, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.86% against 3.63% for TBIL.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
TLT has been more volatile over the past year, at 9.6% annualized against 1.1% for TBIL.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
TBIL fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -0.4% against -16.2% for TLT.
Compare TLT and TBIL 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.