TLT vs TLTW: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
TLT and TLTW are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. TLT is iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF, while TLTW is iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF. TLT has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has TLT ahead on AIQ Score, 59 versus 50.
What is the main difference between TLT and TLTW?
TLT and TLTW hold essentially the same portfolio: 99.8% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | TLT | TLTW |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 49 | 50 |
| Top-10 concentration | 40.9% | 40.9% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.86% | 11.55% |
| Average volume | 34,214,729 | 1,580,038 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -12.3% | -13.3% |
| YTD return | -8.1% | -8.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 8.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.2% | -17.4% |
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | -2.02 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.60 | -2.99 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 50/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 60/100 | 53/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 52/100 | 63/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF vs iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF
TLT leads
TLT leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support TLT, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TLT over TLTW, 59 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. TLT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while TLTW holds the stronger risk resilience profile. TLT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor TLT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. TLT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
TLT vs TLTW: 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 | TLTW | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.35% | TLT |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 49 | 50 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 40.9% | 40.9% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.86% | 11.55% | TLTW |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -16.2% | -17.4% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 9.6% | 8.8% | Similar |
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 TLTW 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.
- Quality75 vs 56TLT +19
- Risk Resilience52 vs 63TLTW +11
- Value45 vs 36TLT +9
- Momentum60 vs 53TLT +7
2 of 4 evidence groups favor TLT. TLT’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; TLTW 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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
TLT's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TLT and TLTW 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.
TLTW (iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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 | TLTW | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 49 | 50 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 34,214,729 | 1,580,038 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 8.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.2% | -17.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | -2.02 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.23 | 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 TLTW share 99.8% of their weighted exposure across 47 common holdings.
Every holding is in both funds. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
TLT is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 40.94% of the fund, against 40.87% for TLTW (49 holdings vs 50). 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 | TLTW | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BOND 4.75% 05/15/2055 | 4.53% | 4.52% | 4.52% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.63% 05/15/2054 | 4.3% | 4.29% | 4.29% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.13% 08/15/2053 | 4.2% | 4.2% | 4.2% |
| TREASURY BOND (2OLD) 4.75% 02/15/2056 | 4.15% | 4.14% | 4.14% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.25% 02/15/2054 | 4.06% | 4.05% | 4.05% |
| TREASURY BOND (OLD) 5.00% 05/15/2056 | 4.04% | 4.04% | 4.04% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.75% 11/15/2053 | 4% | 3.99% | 3.99% |
| TREASURY BOND 4.25% 08/15/2054 | 3.96% | 3.96% | 3.96% |
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 TLTW doesn’t
TLT has no position of 0.01% or more that TLTW lacks or holds at under half the weight.
What TLTW adds that TLT doesn’t
TLTW has no position of 0.01% or more that TLT lacks or holds at under half the weight.
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
2 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 | TLT | 59 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | TLT | Value 45 vs 36 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.5% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day -5.6% vs -6% |
| Risk Resilience | TLTW | Risk Resilience 52 vs 63 |
| 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 TLTW 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 moderate at 9 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20TLT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TLT +9
- 59 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- TLT +8
- 56 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- TLT +7
- 50 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
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.
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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.29%, 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.
- 1TLTW closes the Quality gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to TLT's edge.
- 2TLTW'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.
- 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
TLT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TLT | TLTW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4% | -4.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.4% | -8% |
| Year to date | -8.1% | -8.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.3% | -13.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | TLT | TLTW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 72.9 | 63.3 |
| ADX (14) | 26.2 | 26.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.5% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.6% | -6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.7% | 12.1% |
Risk
TLTW is the more resilient| Metric | TLT | TLTW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | -2.02 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.6 | -2.99 |
| Max drawdown | -16.2% | -17.4% |
| Current drawdown | -13% | -14.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 8.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between TLT and TLTW?
TLT and TLTW hold essentially the same portfolio: 99.8% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do TLT and TLTW overlap?
TLT and TLTW share 99.8% of their weighted exposure across 47 common holdings. Every holding is in both funds. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, TLT or TLTW?
They hold a similar number of positions: 49 for TLT and 50 for TLTW.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
TLT has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.35% for TLTW.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
TLTW, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 11.55% against 4.86% for TLT.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 9.6% annualized for TLT and 8.8% for TLTW.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past year are similar: -16.2% for TLT and -17.4% for TLTW.
Compare TLT and TLTW 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.