TLT vs USFR ETF Comparison
Compare TLT and USFR across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between TLT and USFR?
TLT is iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF, while USFR is WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury Fund. TLT is tied to Fixed Income; USFR is tied to Fixed Income. TLT is broader by holdings count, with 47 positions versus 6 for USFR. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has TLT ahead on AIQ Score, 55 versus 49.
| Metric | TLT | USFR | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.15% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $46.7B | $18.8B | Fund |
| Holdings | 47 | 6 | Fund |
| Average volume | 40,532,752 | 6,256,101 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Fixed Income | Fixed Income | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 1.1% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -11.6% | -0.3% | Risk |
| Beta | 0.17 | -0.01 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.92 | -3.48 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | -1.46 | -2.54 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 55/100 | 49/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 3/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 42/100 | 31/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 54/100 | 66/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF vs WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury Fund
TLT leads
TLT leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from USFR.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support TLT, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF
WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury Fund
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TLT over USFR, 55 versus 49 as of Sep 5, 2026. TLT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while USFR 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: Reversed — USFR led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TLT now leads by 6.
Compare iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF and WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury Fund across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare TLT and USFR 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 Resilience15%54 vs 66USFR +12
- Momentum25%42 vs 31TLT +11
- Value30%45 vs 36TLT +9
- Quality30%75 vs 67TLT +8
2 of 4 evidence groups favor TLT. TLT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; USFR keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No new signals fired.
TLT's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TLT and USFR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TLT (iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
USFR (WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury Fund): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
TLTTLT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
TLTTLT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
TLTTLT on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
USFRUSFR on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | USFR | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $46.7B | $18.8B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 47 | 6 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 40,532,752 | 6,256,101 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 1.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -11.6% | -0.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.92 | -3.48 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.17 | -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.
Weighted holdings overlap is not available for this pair. Sector exposure above is a related but different measure — it says how much of each fund sits in the same parts of the market, not how much of the same securities they hold.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, TLT or USFR?
TLT currently has more reported holdings, with 47 positions versus 6.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The current fund profile does not show a lower-cost winner.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
TLT has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
USFR has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
TLT currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 55 to 49.
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 | 55 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | TLT | Value 45 vs 36 |
| Technicals | USFR | Price vs 50-day -1.6% vs 0%; vs 200-day -4.9% vs 0% |
| Risk Resilience | USFR | Risk Resilience 54 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 USFR 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 6 points.
- Only 2 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)
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 · Apr 22 – Sep 3TLT lead: Reversed — USFR led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TLT now leads by 6.
- Today
- TLT +6
- 55 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- TLT +7
- 56 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- USFR +2
- 53 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- TLT +10
- 60 vs 50
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when TLT moved ahead of USFR.
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
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.31%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.1%)
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.05%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.2%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.3%)
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 +0.17%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1USFR closes the Momentum gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to TLT's edge.
- 2USFR'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 — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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.
Technicals
USFR has the stronger structure| Metric | TLT | USFR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.2 | 37 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 22.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.6% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.9% | 0% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 10.7% | 1.2% |
Risk
USFR is the more resilient| Metric | TLT | USFR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.17 | -0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.92 | -3.48 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.46 | -2.54 |
| Max drawdown | -11.6% | -0.3% |
| Current drawdown | -10.8% | -0.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 1.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1% | 0% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TLT or USFR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TLT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 55 against USFR's 49. The edge comes from momentum and value. USFR is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is TLT or USFR the better buy right now?
TLT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TLT over USFR?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. USFR leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; TLT leads Momentum by 11 points; TLT leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, TLT or USFR?
TLT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TLT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, TLT or USFR?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, TLT or USFR?
TLT on the Momentum factor, by 11 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, TLT or USFR?
USFR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. USFR on Risk Resilience, by 12 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is TLT more profitable than USFR?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is TLT's lead over USFR getting stronger or weaker?
TLT lead: Reversed — USFR led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TLT now leads by 6. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when TLT moved ahead of USFR.
What would change the TLT vs USFR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: USFR closes the Momentum gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to TLT's edge; USFR's 52-Week Low Proximity resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it; TLT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about TLT and USFR?
TLT: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. USFR: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on TLT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On USFR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TLT and USFR with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.