By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel discusses the trade-off between VGLT's lower expense ratio and TLT's longer duration and higher liquidity. They agree that duration is the dominant risk lever, and the choice between the two depends on the expected rate environment. The panel is neutral on the overall stance, with no consensus on a clear tilt towards either VGLT or TLT.
Risk: Exposure to sharper price declines in rising rates due to TLT's longer duration and negative convexity
Opportunity: Potential cost savings over the long term with VGLT's lower expense ratio
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
The Vanguard Long-Term Treasury ETF (NASDAQ:VGLT) carries a significantly lower expense ratio than the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (NASDAQ:TLT) for investors seeking exposure to long-dated government debt.
These two funds are staples for fixed-income investors looking to hedge against stock market volatility or take advantage of falling interest rates. While both focus on the long end of the U.S. Treasury curve, subtle differences in cost and the specific maturity ranges of the underlying bonds could meaningfully impact long-term portfolio results for income-focused investors.
| Metric | TLT | VGLT | |---|---|---| | Issuer | iShares | Vanguard | | Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.03% | | 1-year return (as of June 12, 2026) | 2.89% | 3.30% | | Dividend yield | 4.55% | 4.58% | | Beta | 2.38 | 2.24 | | AUM | $42.9 billion | $14.8 billion |
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from five-year monthly returns. The 1-year return represents total return over the trailing 12 months. Dividend yield is the trailing-12-month distribution yield.
VGLT is notably cheaper, with an expense ratio of 0.03% compared to TLT’s 0.15%. Despite this cost gap, both funds provide a nearly-identical divided yield of roughly 4.6%.
| Metric | TLT | VGLT | |---|---|---| | Max drawdown (5 yr) | (48.4%) | (46.2%) | | Growth of $1,000 over 5 years (total return) | $603 | $633 |
VGLT is a fixed income fund that tracks the Bloomberg U.S. Long Treasury Index -- which holds Treasuries with maturities of 10+ years. The fund, which was launched in 2009, manages 99 holdings and pays a roughly 4.6% dividend yield. Its primary goal is providing steady income by maintaining a dollar-weighted average maturity of 10 to 25 years. The fund has an average effective maturity of 21.8 years -- meaning the bonds it holds are expected to be fully repaid, on average, in that time frame. The fund’s average duration -- a measure of how sensitive the fund's price is to changes in interest rates -- is 13.8 years (a longer duration means bigger price swings when rates move).
TLT also focuses on U.S. Treasuries, but tracks the ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index. Launched in 2002, the fund holds 46 different Treasury bonds and pays a roughly 4.6% dividend. The fund has an average effective maturity of 26.1 years and an average duration of 15.9 years. By focusing exclusively on maturities beyond two decades, this fund tends to be more sensitive to interest rate changes than shorter-duration bond products.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
At first glance, VGLT and TLT look very similar -- both hold long-dated U.S. Treasuries and offer a roughly 4.6% dividend yield. But the differences that matter most to long-term investors are hiding beneath the surface.
The most obvious edge goes to VGLT: its expense ratio of 0.03% is five times cheaper than TLT's 0.15%. That gap may sound small, but in bond investing -- where returns are more modest than equities -- cost efficiency is one of the few variables investors can actually control. Over a decade or more, that difference in fees can compound meaningfully.
There's also a meaningful distinction in how these funds are constructed. VGLT holds bonds with 10+ year maturities, while TLT focuses exclusively on maturities beyond 20 years. That longer average duration makes TLT more sensitive to interest rate movements -- which cuts both ways. When rates fall, TLT can deliver bigger price gains. When rates rise, it tends to fall harder.
Both funds serve the same core purpose -- providing income and acting as a counterweight to stock market volatility. But for buy-and-hold investors who prioritize cost efficiency and slightly lower interest rate risk, VGLT makes a compelling case as the better long-term choice.
Before you buy stock in Vanguard Scottsdale Funds - Vanguard Long-Term Treasury ETF, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Vanguard Scottsdale Funds - Vanguard Long-Term Treasury ETF wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $433,268! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,259,391!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 935% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 206% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of June 14, 2026. *
Andy Gould has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"VGLT's cost edge is real but secondary to TLT's purer duration and liquidity for many rate-sensitive portfolios."
The article correctly flags VGLT's 0.12 percentage point expense advantage and slightly milder drawdown, yet it downplays TLT's 2.9x larger AUM and stricter 20+ year mandate that produces a 15.9-year duration versus VGLT's 13.8. That extra duration amplifies gains if the Fed cuts faster than priced, while TLT's deeper liquidity narrows effective spreads for institutional flows. The 1-year return edge for VGLT may simply reflect its milder rate sensitivity rather than structural superiority. Cost savings matter, but only after matching duration and trading needs.
TLT's liquidity premium could vanish in a broad bond rally where retail dominates, leaving VGLT's fee edge to compound unchallenged over 10+ years.
"The supposed cost advantage of VGLT is likely outweighed by duration-driven upside in a rate-down regime and by liquidity/tracking risks, making the article's conclusion premature."
The article highlights a 0.03% vs 0.15% expense gap and similar yields, but misses regime risk. TLT has a longer duration (about 15.9y vs 13.8y for VGLT) and higher rate sensitivity, meaning in a multi-year decline in rates it could post larger price gains; conversely, in a sustained rise in rates it could underperform more than VGLT. Liquidity matters too: TLT has roughly $42.9B AUM vs VGLT’s $14.8B, implying tighter spreads and potential tracking error for VGLT in stressed markets. Over a decade, the fee advantage may be dwarfed by price swings and liquidity costs, so the article’s clear tilt toward VGLT is oversimplified.
If rates keep falling or stay volatile, the longer duration of TLT could deliver outsized gains that outweigh the fee advantage of VGLT; and VGLT’s smaller AUM could amplify tracking error in big moves.
"The choice between VGLT and TLT should be driven by liquidity needs and duration targets rather than the nominal difference in expense ratios."
The article correctly highlights the fee advantage of VGLT over TLT, which is mathematically sound for long-term holders. However, the analysis ignores the 'liquidity premium.' TLT remains the primary vehicle for institutional hedging and options activity, boasting significantly higher daily volume and tighter bid-ask spreads. For a trader or an active asset allocator, the 12-basis-point savings in VGLT’s expense ratio is easily eclipsed by slippage costs in thinner markets. Furthermore, the duration difference—13.8 years for VGLT vs. 15.9 for TLT—is the real story; investors aren't just choosing a fee structure, they are choosing their sensitivity to the long end of the yield curve. If you believe in a 'higher for longer' rate environment, both are currently 'falling knives' regardless of fees.
The superior liquidity and massive options market for TLT provide a 'hedging utility' that makes its higher expense ratio a negligible cost of doing business for professional allocators.
"VGLT wins on fees but loses on duration sensitivity; the 'better' choice depends entirely on the next 24 months of Fed policy, which the article never addresses."
The article's cost argument is mathematically sound but economically incomplete. VGLT's 12bp fee advantage compounds to ~$120/year per $100k invested—real money over decades. However, the article treats duration difference (13.8 vs 15.9 years) as a minor nuance when it's actually the portfolio's primary risk lever. In a rising-rate environment, TLT's extra 2.1 years of duration exposure could easily wipe out a decade of fee savings in a single quarter. The 5-year max drawdown comparison (46.2% vs 48.4%) is cherry-picked; we need to know the current rate environment and forward expectations. Also missing: TLT's $42.9B AUM provides vastly superior liquidity—the bid-ask spread difference could exceed the annual fee advantage for retail traders.
If rates fall materially from here, TLT's higher duration becomes a feature, not a bug—those extra 2 years of maturity could generate 200-300bp of outperformance, obliterating the fee gap. The article assumes a neutral-to-rising rate regime without stating that assumption.
"TLT's strict maturity mandate creates rebalancing costs VGLT sidesteps, eroding its duration edge over long horizons."
Claude correctly flags duration as the dominant risk lever but misses TLT's strict 20+ year mandate, which triggers ongoing sales of bonds nearing maturity. VGLT's broader 10+ year range avoids this forced turnover, potentially reducing rebalancing drag in thin long-end markets. Over 5-10 years that structural difference could offset much of TLT's extra duration exposure regardless of rate path.
"TLT's 20+ year mandate does not force ongoing sales; turnover is from index roll, not maturity cliffs; the real risks are roll yield, convexity, and liquidity drag rather than forced bond sales."
Responding to Grok: The claim that TLT's '20+ year mandate' triggers ongoing sale of bonds nearing maturity is a misreading. Passive long-end ETFs roll maturing issues into new long bonds rather than forced sales of existing long issues; turnover is driven by index composition, not maturity cliffs. The real risk is roll yield, convexity, and liquidity drag in stressed markets—TLT's longer duration exposes you to sharper reprice risk in rising rates, not a pre-set sale schedule.
"TLT's utility as a hedging instrument via its options market provides more value to sophisticated investors than the marginal fee savings of VGLT."
ChatGPT is correct on the mechanics of index roll, but both Grok and ChatGPT are missing the convexity risk inherent in these specific duration profiles. As rates approach the 4.5%-5% range, the negative convexity of the 20+ year bucket in TLT accelerates price declines compared to VGLT’s broader 10+ year mandate. The 'liquidity premium' isn't just about bid-ask spreads; it’s about the ability to hedge via the massive TLT options chain, which VGLT lacks entirely.
"The convexity risk Gemini flags is directional—it only matters if rates rise, and nobody's stated whether the panel believes they will."
Gemini's convexity point is sharp but needs stress-testing: negative convexity in TLT's 20+ year bucket only bites if rates *rise* sharply from here. Current 10Y at ~4.2% already prices in 'higher for longer'—if that thesis breaks and rates fall, TLT's convexity flips to a feature. Nobody's stated the forward rate assumption explicitly. That's the real hinge. Also: VGLT's lack of options liquidity is real, but retail investors (the article's likely audience) rarely hedge anyway.
The panel discusses the trade-off between VGLT's lower expense ratio and TLT's longer duration and higher liquidity. They agree that duration is the dominant risk lever, and the choice between the two depends on the expected rate environment. The panel is neutral on the overall stance, with no consensus on a clear tilt towards either VGLT or TLT.
Potential cost savings over the long term with VGLT's lower expense ratio
Exposure to sharper price declines in rising rates due to TLT's longer duration and negative convexity