TLTW vs VGIT: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
TLTW and VGIT are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. TLTW is iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF, while VGIT is Vanguard Intermediate-Term Treasury ETF. VGIT is broader by holdings count, with 106 positions versus 50 for TLTW. TLTW is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VGIT ahead on AIQ Score, 59 versus 50.
What is the main difference between TLTW and VGIT?
TLTW and VGIT have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | TLTW | VGIT |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 50 | 106 |
| Top-10 concentration | 40.9% | 18.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 11.55% | 4.02% |
| Average volume | 1,580,038 | 4,545,069 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -13.3% | -5.8% |
| YTD return | -8.8% | -4.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 8.8% | 3.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -17.4% | -7% |
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.02 | -2.65 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.99 | -3.76 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 50/100 | 59/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 53/100 | 57/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 63/100 | 87/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF vs Vanguard Intermediate-Term Treasury ETF
VGIT leads
VGIT leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VGIT, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF
Vanguard Intermediate-Term Treasury ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VGIT over TLTW, 59 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. VGIT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. VGIT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VGIT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. VGIT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond BuyWrite Strategy ETF and Vanguard Intermediate-Term Treasury ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
TLTW vs VGIT: 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 | TLTW | VGIT | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.35% | 0.03% | VGIT |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 50 | 106 | VGIT |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 40.9% | 18.6% | VGIT |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 11.55% | 4.02% | TLTW |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -17.4% | -7% | VGIT |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 8.8% | 3.6% | VGIT |
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 TLTW and VGIT 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 Resilience63 vs 87VGIT +24
- Quality56 vs 70VGIT +14
- Momentum53 vs 57VGIT +4
- Value36 vs 36Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VGIT. VGIT’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
VGIT's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TLTW and VGIT both carry a full feed there.
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 | TLTW | VGIT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 50 | 106 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,580,038 | 4,545,069 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 8.8% | 3.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -17.4% | -7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.02 | -2.65 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.09 | 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
TLTW and VGIT share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
47 holdings are unique to TLTW, and 103 holdings are unique to VGIT. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
TLTW is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 40.87% of the fund, against 18.61% for VGIT (50 holdings vs 106). 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 TLTW adds that VGIT doesn’t
| Holding | TLTW | VGIT |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY BOND 4.75% 05/15/2055 | 4.52% | Not held |
| TREASURY BOND 4.63% 05/15/2054 | 4.29% | Not held |
| TREASURY BOND 4.13% 08/15/2053 | 4.2% | Not held |
| TREASURY BOND (2OLD) 4.75% 02/15/2056 | 4.14% | Not held |
| TREASURY BOND 4.25% 02/15/2054 | 4.05% | Not held |
| TREASURY BOND (OLD) 5.00% 05/15/2056 | 4.04% | Not held |
What VGIT adds that TLTW doesn’t
| Holding | VGIT | TLTW |
|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.63% 02/15/2035 | 1.94% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.38% 05/15/2034 | 1.91% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.25% 11/15/2034 | 1.9% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 3.88% 08/15/2034 | 1.86% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.38% 05/15/2036 | 1.85% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.13% 02/15/2036 | 1.84% | 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 VGIT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VGIT | 50 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 36 |
| Technicals | VGIT | Price vs 50-day -0.4% vs -0.8%; vs 200-day -6% vs -3.1% |
| Risk Resilience | VGIT | Risk Resilience 63 vs 87 |
| 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 TLTW and VGIT and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- 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 VGIT.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20VGIT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VGIT +9
- 50 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- VGIT +9
- 48 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- VGIT +8
- 43 vs 51
- 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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only TLTW
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VGIT
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.1%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
VGIT 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 +0.29%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.05%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to VGIT's edge.
- 2TLTW's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VGIT'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
VGIT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TLTW | VGIT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.3% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.1% | -0.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.1% | -2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8% | -4.2% |
| Year to date | -8.8% | -4.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -13.3% | -5.8% |
Technicals
VGIT has the stronger structure| Metric | TLTW | VGIT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.3 | 68.1 |
| ADX (14) | 26.3 | 33.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.4% | -0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6% | -3.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.1% | 4.2% |
Risk
VGIT is the more resilient| Metric | TLTW | VGIT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.02 | -2.65 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.99 | -3.76 |
| Max drawdown | -17.4% | -7% |
| Current drawdown | -14.1% | -6.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 8.8% | 3.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1% | -0.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between TLTW and VGIT?
TLTW and VGIT have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do TLTW and VGIT overlap?
TLTW and VGIT share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 47 holdings are unique to TLTW, and 103 holdings are unique to VGIT. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, TLTW or VGIT?
VGIT holds more positions: 106 versus 50 for TLTW.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VGIT has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% 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 4.02% for VGIT.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
TLTW has been more volatile over the past year, at 8.8% annualized against 3.6% for VGIT.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VGIT fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -7% against -17.4% for TLTW.
Compare TLTW and VGIT 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.