Betashares Australian Government Bond ETF vs VanEck 1-3 Month US Treasury Bond ETF
These ETFs invest in different asset classes (shares vs bonds). They are unlikely to share holdings.
Scored across Cost (35%), Fund size (20%), Holdings breadth (25%), Income (20%). Past performance is excluded.
See full breakdown ↓Overlap is calculated from each fund's full published holdings list. These funds invest in different markets, so the expected overlap is approximately 0%.
AGVT and TBIL are both Bonds ETFs. Both charge 0.22% p.a. A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
Betashares Australian Government Bond ETF
BetaShares
VanEck 1-3 Month US Treasury Bond ETF
VanEck
Comparison scores reflect how each ETF compares to the other on these specific dimensions only. They are not absolute ratings or recommendations.
Key differences at a glance
Which of AGVT and TBIL fits depends on your objectives, not on one being superior. Where the two funds differ most:
Green highlights the leading comparison score, the factually lower fee, or the higher scale or income figure. Performance is never highlighted. Data from issuer disclosures, reviewed quarterly; sector and geography figures for some funds are category-inferred estimates, clearly labelled on each fund's page.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
Cost (management fee): Both charge about 0.22% p.a.
Fund size (assets): AGVT is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
Holdings breadth: AGVT spreads exposure across more holdings (AGVT 79, TBIL 17); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
Income (distribution yield): AGVT distributes approximately 3.9% and TBIL approximately 3.98%; TBIL carries the higher estimated distribution yield. A higher yield may suit an income focus; a lower one may suit a growth or tax-efficiency focus. Yields are estimates and are not guaranteed; past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
General information only, not financial advice. ETFLens does not hold an AFSL. Always read the relevant PDS and consider seeking advice from a licensed financial adviser.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns or distributions.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures. Where a fund does not publish full holdings, its list is not shown here (a category-based estimate appears on the fund page).
AGVT top holdings
TBIL top holdings
This issuer does not publish full holdings for this fund, so they are not shown here.
Sector weights for TBIL are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
AGVT sectors
TBIL sectors
Geographic weights for TBIL are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
AGVT geography
TBIL geography
Choosing between AGVT and TBIL depends on your goals, time horizon and current holdings, not on one being the right answer for everyone. The main differences are summarised above, with the complete data below.
AGVT and TBIL do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page.
AGVT and TBIL charge the same management fee of 0.22% per year.
AGVT (Betashares Australian Government Bond ETF) manages approximately $1.1B and TBIL (VanEck 1-3 Month US Treasury Bond ETF) manages approximately $106.76M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
AGVT and TBIL do not share enough listed top holdings to estimate overlap, so whether holding both duplicates your exposure depends on their full constituent lists.
There is no universally right choice. It depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. AGVT charges 0.22% and TBIL charges 0.22%, the same management fee. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors above and consider each fund's Product Disclosure Statement and Target Market Determination.
General information only. This comparison and the ETFLens tools on this page provide general information about two exchange-traded funds and do not take into account your personal objectives, financial situation or needs. It is not personal financial product or investment advice. ETFLens does not hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). Holdings overlap is calculated from each fund's published holdings (full lists where the issuer publishes one, listed top holdings otherwise), and fee data is sourced from fund manager PDS documents and updated quarterly. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. Consider each fund's Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) and Target Market Determination (TMD), and seek advice from a registered tax agent or licensed financial adviser, before making investment decisions.
Check your portfolio overlap
See how these ETFs interact with your other holdings.
Open overlap checker →Build your portfolio
ProModel a portfolio with these ETFs and see projected fees and income.
Build a portfolio →View full ETF profiles
Holdings, fees, sectors and distributions for each fund.
AGVT full profile →TBIL full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →