USFR vs VTI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
USFR and VTI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. USFR is WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury Fund, while VTI is Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF. VTI is broader by holdings count, with 3,524 positions versus 6 for USFR. VTI has the lower expense ratio.
What is the main difference between USFR and VTI?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to USFR's 6.
| Metric | USFR | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 6 | 3,524 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 3.72% | 1.05% |
| Average volume | 5,734,869 | 3,115,564 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +0.3% | +15.8% |
| YTD return | +0.4% | +12.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +4% | +11.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 1.1% | 13% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -0.3% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -0.2% | -25.4% |
| Beta | -0.01 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.37 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.45 | 1.32 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 78/100 | 51/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 66/100 | 86/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury Fund vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
USFR and VTI are effectively level
USFR and VTI are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury Fund
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate USFR and VTI as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury Fund and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
USFR vs VTI: 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 | USFR | VTI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.03% | VTI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 6 | 3,524 | VTI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 3.72% | 1.05% | USFR |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -0.2% | -25.4% | USFR |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 1.1% | 13% | 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.
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 USFR and VTI 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.
- Momentum78 vs 51USFR +27
- Risk Resilience66 vs 86VTI +20
- Quality67 vs 74VTI +7
- Value36 vs 42VTI +6
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 10 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
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 VTI 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 | USFR | VTI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 6 | 3,524 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 5,734,869 | 3,115,564 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 1.1% | 13% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -0.3% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.37 | 0.86 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.01 | 1.02 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 60 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VTI | Value 36 vs 42 |
| Technicals | VTI | Price vs 50-day 0.1% vs 0.2%; vs 200-day 0.2% vs 5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | VTI | Risk Resilience 66 vs 86 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 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 swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VTI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 60 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- USFR +1
- 60 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- VTI +10
- 50 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- VTI +6
- 60 vs 66
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when USFR moved ahead of VTI.
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.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only USFR
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.5%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VTI
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Compression, 52-Week High Proximity.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price 0%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, AIQ +1 points).
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
VTI leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | USFR | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.1% | 2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.1% | 8.4% |
| Year to date | 0.4% | 12.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.3% | 15.8% |
Technicals
VTI has the stronger structure| Metric | USFR | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 100 | 55.2 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 13.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.1% | 0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.2% | 5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 1.1% | 9.8% |
Risk
VTI is the more resilient| Metric | USFR | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.01 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.37 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.45 | 1.32 |
| Max drawdown | -0.3% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -1.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 1.1% | 13% |
| Value at risk (95%) | 0% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between USFR and VTI?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to USFR's 6.
Which ETF is more diversified, USFR or VTI?
VTI holds more positions: 3,524 versus 6 for USFR.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTI has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.15% for USFR.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
USFR, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 3.72% against 1.05% for VTI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VTI has been more volatile over the past year, at 13% 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 -25.4% for VTI.
Compare USFR and VTI 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.