USFR vs VGIT: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk

USFR and VGIT are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. USFR is WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury Fund, while VGIT is Vanguard Intermediate-Term Treasury ETF. VGIT is broader by holdings count, with 106 positions versus 6 for USFR. VGIT has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has USFR ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 59.

Market data as of Oct 21, 2026 market close· Fund characteristics as of Oct 21, 2026
USFR
WisdomTree
vs
VGIT
Vanguard
USFR
WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury Fund
Issuer
WisdomTree
Inception
2014-02-04
VGIT
Vanguard Intermediate-Term Treasury ETF
Issuer
Vanguard
Inception
2009-11-19

What is the main difference between USFR and VGIT?

VGIT holds 106 positions to USFR's 6.

Expense ratio
USFR
0.15%
VGIT
0.03%
Lower annual fund costVGIT
Holdings
USFR
6
VGIT
106
Broader reported basketVGIT
1Y return
USFR
+0.3%
VGIT
-5.8%
Trailing performanceUSFR
Annualized volatility
USFR
1.1%
VGIT
3.6%
Lower realized volatilityUSFR
MetricUSFRVGIT
Fund
Expense ratio0.15%0.03%
Holdings6106
Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months3.72%4.02%
Average volume5,734,8694,545,069
Performance
1Y return+0.3%-5.8%
YTD return+0.4%-4.8%
5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested+4%-0.1%
Risk
Annualized volatility1.1%3.6%
Max drawdown (1Y)-0.3%-7%
Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested-0.2%-13.7%
Beta-0.010.09
Sharpe ratio-3.37-2.65
Sortino ratio-2.45-3.76
AlgovestIQ
AIQ Score60/10059/100
AIQ Edge Score8/107/10
Momentum78/10057/100
Risk Resilience66/10087/100

AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison

WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury Fund vs Vanguard Intermediate-Term Treasury ETF

Data as of Oct 21, 2026· market close· Fixed Income — Government· Coverage 64/66 fields· High confidence
AIQ VerdictFragileAIQ Comparison Conviction 2/10

USFR leads

USFR leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from VGIT.

Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support USFR, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.

Evidence agreement: 1 of 4Comparison trend: Reversed
USFR

WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury Fund

Leads
AIQ Score
60/100
AIQ Edge Score
8/10
VGIT

Vanguard Intermediate-Term Treasury ETF

AIQ Score
59/100
AIQ Edge Score
7/10

The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors USFR over VGIT, 60 versus 59 as of Oct 21, 2026. USFR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while VGIT holds the stronger risk resilience profile. USFR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor USFR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. USFR lead: Reversed — VGIT led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; USFR now leads by 1.

Compare WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury Fund and Vanguard Intermediate-Term Treasury ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.

USFR 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 wantUSFRVGITFits
Lower costExpense ratio0.15%0.03%VGIT
Broader diversificationNumber of holdings6106VGIT
Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield3.72%4.02%VGIT
Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years-0.2%-13.7%USFR
Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year1.1%3.6%USFR

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.

Currently unavailable

Performance over time

Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.

USFR
+21.6%
VGIT
-0.4%

Total return comparison

Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested

USFR $12,159 · VGIT $9,957

Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.

Compare USFR and VGIT against another ticker

Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.

Basic: 2 symbols·Explorer: 3 symbols·Pro and Premium: 5 symbols·Your limit: 2

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.

USFR advantage
0
VGIT advantage
  • Momentum78 vs 57
    USFR +21
  • Risk Resilience66 vs 87
    VGIT +21
  • Quality67 vs 70
    Even
  • Value36 vs 36
    Even

1 of 4 evidence groups favor USFR. USFR’s edge is concentrated in momentum; VGIT 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.

USFR0 AIQ

No factor moved materially.

No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 10 active signals are unchanged.

VGIT+1 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum +3

No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.

USFR's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.

Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — USFR and VGIT both carry a full feed there.

The central trade-off

USFR (WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury Fund): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.

VGIT (Vanguard Intermediate-Term Treasury 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.

MeasureUSFRVGITWhy it matters
Expense ratio0.15%0.03%Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold.
Holdings6106More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns.
Average volume5,734,8694,545,069Liquidity — matters most if you trade size.
Annualized volatility1.1%3.6%Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure.
Max drawdown (1Y)-0.3%-7%The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year.
Sharpe ratio-3.37-2.65Return per unit of risk. Higher is better.
Beta-0.010.09Sensitivity 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.

Cash & Others100.0% vs 0.5%
Government0.0% vs 99.5%
USFRVGIT

AIQ Agreement Matrix

1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor USFR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.

Evidence groupFavorsReading
AIQ ScoreEven60 vs 59
FundamentalsNot coveredNot covered
ValuationEvenValue 36 vs 36
TechnicalsUSFRPrice vs 50-day 0.1% vs -0.8%; vs 200-day 0.2% vs -3.1%
Risk ResilienceVGITRisk Resilience 66 vs 87
Analyst expectationsNot coveredNot covered

✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of USFR and VGIT and are excluded from the count.

AIQ Decision Stability

Fragile

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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 USFR.

How the comparison changed

120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20

USFR lead: Reversed — VGIT led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; USFR now leads by 1.

Jun 21USFR leads above the line · VGIT leads belowOct 20
Today
USFR +1
60 vs 59
7 sessions ago
USFR +3
60 vs 57
30 sessions ago
VGIT +1
50 vs 51
90 sessions ago
USFR +6
60 vs 54

The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when USFR moved ahead of VGIT.

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.

USFRConflicted

6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted

Only USFR

  • Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.06%)
  • Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
  • RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
  • EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
  • EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
  • 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
  • Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
VGITConflicted

1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted

Only VGIT

  • Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.37%)
  • Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon

Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week Low Proximity, MACD Bullish Crossover.

USFR 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.

USFRNo material change

Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price 0%, AIQ 0 points).

VGITNo material change

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.

  1. 1VGIT closes the Momentum gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to USFR's edge.
  2. 2VGIT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
  3. 3USFR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
  4. 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

USFR leads 5 of 6 windows
MetricUSFRVGIT
1 week (5 sessions)0.1%0.5%
1 month (20 sessions)0%-0.5%
3 months (63 sessions)0.1%-2.2%
6 months (126 sessions)0.1%-4.2%
Year to date0.4%-4.8%
1 year (252 sessions)0.3%-5.8%

Technicals

USFR has the stronger structure
MetricUSFRVGIT
RSI (14)10068.1
ADX (14)20.333.4
Price vs 50-day0.1%-0.8%
Price vs 200-day0.2%-3.1%
Volatility (1M, annualized)1.1%4.2%

Risk

VGIT is the more resilient
MetricUSFRVGIT
Beta-0.010.09
Sharpe ratio-3.37-2.65
Sortino ratio-2.45-3.76
Max drawdown-0.3%-7%
Current drawdown0%-6.1%
Annualized volatility1.1%3.6%
Value at risk (95%)0%-0.4%

Straight answers

Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.

What is the difference between USFR and VGIT?

VGIT holds 106 positions to USFR's 6.

Which ETF is more diversified, USFR or VGIT?

VGIT holds more positions: 106 versus 6 for USFR.

Which has the lower expense ratio?

VGIT has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.15% for USFR.

Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?

VGIT, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.02% against 3.72% for USFR.

Which ETF has been more volatile?

VGIT has been more volatile over the past year, at 3.6% annualized against 1.1% for USFR.

Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?

USFR fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -0.2% against -13.7% for VGIT.

Compare USFR 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.