BND vs VT Stock Comparison
Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF vs Vanguard Total World Stock ETF
VT leads
VT leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF
Vanguard Total World Stock ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VT over BND, 62 versus 58 as of Sep 2, 2026. VT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while BND holds the stronger risk resilience profile. VT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. VT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF and Vanguard Total World Stock ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Momentum25%42 vs 60VT +18
- Value30%36 vs 45VT +9
- Risk Resilience15%95 vs 86BND +9
- Quality30%75 vs 69BND +6
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VT. VT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; BND keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
VT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BND and VT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VT (Vanguard Total World Stock ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
BND (Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality.
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
VTVT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
VTVT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
VTVT on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
BNDBND on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VT | 58 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VT | Value 36 vs 45 |
| Technicals | VT | Price vs 50-day -1.2% vs 1.4%; vs 200-day -1.8% vs 7.7% |
| Risk Resilience | BND | Risk Resilience 95 vs 86 |
| 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 BND and VT 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 VT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1VT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VT +4
- 58 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- VT +4
- 59 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- VT +10
- 56 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- BND +7
- 65 vs 58
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 30 when VT moved ahead of BND.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.31%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.88%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
VT 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.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.43%, 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.
- 1BND closes the Momentum gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to VT's edge.
- 2BND's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate VT's advantage entirely.
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
VT has the stronger structure| Metric | BND | VT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.7 | 48.6 |
| ADX (14) | 12.5 | 14.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.2% | 1.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.8% | 7.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 4.1% | 9.8% |
Risk
BND is the more resilient| Metric | BND | VT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.1 | 1.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.57 | 1.06 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.34 | 1.54 |
| Max drawdown | -4% | -9.9% |
| Current drawdown | -3.9% | -1.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 3.9% | 13.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.4% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BND or VT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 62 against BND's 58. The edge comes from momentum and value. BND 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 BND or VT the better buy right now?
VT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VT over BND?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. VT leads Momentum by 18 points; VT leads Value by 9 points; BND leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, BND or VT?
VT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VT 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, BND or VT?
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, BND or VT?
VT on the Momentum factor, by 18 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, BND or VT?
BND is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BND on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 BND more profitable than VT?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is VT's lead over BND getting stronger or weaker?
VT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-30, when VT moved ahead of BND.
What would change the BND vs VT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BND closes the Momentum gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to VT's edge; BND's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; VT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate VT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BND and VT?
BND: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. VT: 4 bullish / 1 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 BND is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On VT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BND and VT 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.