Best T-Bill ETFs: SGOV, BIL, and SHV Compared

An institutional-grade comparison of SGOV, BIL, and SHV to help sophisticated investors evaluate yields, expense ratios, and structural trade-offs when parking cash.

The short version: SGOV, BIL, and SHV offer highly secure, liquid vehicles for parking cash in short-term U.S. Treasury securities, with one-year returns through late October 2026 showing nearly identical performance across the funds. (BIL: SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF – Fees, Returns & Holdings)

Introduction: The Role of T-Bill ETFs in Modern Cash Management

For institutional and retail investors alike, managing cash effectively requires balancing yield, liquidity, and capital preservation. Short-term Treasury Bill (T-Bill) exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have emerged as premier vehicles for this purpose. These funds provide a convenient way to preserve capital and manage liquidity while seeking minimal interest rate risk. (iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF | SGOV)

By investing in obligations backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, these ETFs offer a highly secure alternative to traditional bank accounts and money market funds. However, choosing the right fund requires a granular understanding of their structural differences, expense structures, and underlying holdings. (Charles Schwab)

Structural Profiles: Comparing SGOV, BIL, and SHV

The primary differentiator among SGOV, BIL, and SHV lies in the maturity profiles of their underlying Treasury portfolios. SGOV tracks the ICE 0-3 Month US Treasury Securities Index, focusing strictly on ultra-short-term debt. BIL tracks the Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index, which targets Treasury Bills that have remaining maturities between 1 and 3 months. Understanding these specific maturity boundaries helps investors select the precise fund that matches their liquidity timeline and risk tolerance.

In contrast, SHV extends further out on the yield curve. It holds Treasury securities that have a remaining term to final maturity of less than or equal to one year as of the monthly rebalance date, provided they have $1 billion or more of outstanding face value (excluding amounts held by the Federal Reserve System Open Market Account). This broader mandate allows SHV to capture a wider range of short-term maturities.

These structural differences directly impact portfolio turnover. During the most recent fiscal year, SGOV recorded a portfolio turnover rate of 0% of the average value of its portfolio. Conversely, SHV experienced a portfolio turnover rate of 115% over its most recent fiscal year, reflecting the frequent rolling of maturing securities with up to one year of duration. This stark contrast in turnover rates highlights how different underlying index rules dictate trading frequency within each fund.

The Cost of Parking Cash: Expense Ratios and Net Yield Drag

When investing in ultra-short-term debt instruments, where yields are tightly bound by Federal Reserve policy, minimizing fees is paramount. Even minor differences in expense ratios can drag down net yields over time. SGOV is the most cost-effective option among the three, sporting an annual expense ratio of 0.09%.

BIL sits in the middle with an annual expense ratio of 0.1352%, which is slightly above the 0.11% average for similar short-term funds. SHV is the most expensive of the trio, carrying an annual expense ratio of 0.15%, consisting entirely of its management fee. When evaluating these costs, investors must consider how expense ratios act as a direct drag on net yield. A key decision checkpoint is whether the minor yield differences justify paying a higher fee for SHV over SGOV's 0.09% expense ratio, especially when parking cash for short horizons.

Expense ratios are charged every year, so a lower ratio leaves more of the fund's Treasury income with the investor. SGOV charges 0.09%, BIL 0.1352% and SHV 0.15%.

Yield Analysis and Historical Performance

Because these funds invest in highly similar pools of short-term government debt, their historical performance has been tightly clustered. For the one-year period ending October 27, 2026, the total returns were nearly identical: SGOV and BIL both delivered a return of 3.7%, while SHV trailed slightly at 3.6% due to its slightly longer duration and higher expense drag.

Investors should note that distribution yields and trailing 12-month yields can experience period-over-period volatility. This volatility is driven by several factors, including fund capital gain distributions, significant fluctuations in outstanding fund shares, seasonality of dividends from underlying holdings, and tax considerations. (iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF | SGOV)

Tax Efficiency and State Exemptions

A key advantage of T-Bill ETFs over traditional high-yield savings accounts or certain money market funds is their potential tax efficiency. Interest income from direct U.S. Treasury obligations is generally exempt from state and local income taxes. However, the tax treatment of ETF distributions can be complex.

Standard after-tax return calculations presented by fund managers typically utilize the historical highest individual U.S. federal marginal income tax rates and do not reflect the impact of state or local taxes. Because tax laws vary significantly by jurisdiction and individual circumstances, investors should consult a qualified tax professional to determine the exact state and local tax-exempt status of their ETF distributions.

Liquidity, Trading Mechanics, and Bid-Ask Spreads

For large-scale cash management, liquidity and trading friction are just as important as the expense ratio. High trading volume and tight bid-ask spreads ensure that investors can enter and exit positions with minimal transaction costs. BIL, for instance, features a highly liquid profile with a 30-day median bid-ask spread of 0.01%.

This median spread is calculated by identifying the national best bid and national best offer (NBBO) for the fund at the end of each 10-second interval during each trading day of the last 30 calendar days, then dividing the difference by the midpoint of the NBBO. All three funds maintain deep liquidity, but investors should monitor secondary market conditions during periods of heightened market stress.

Risk Assessment: Interest Rate Sensitivity and Drawdowns

While Treasury securities have historically involved little risk of loss of principal if held to maturity, the market value of these ETFs is not guaranteed and will fluctuate. The net asset value (NAV), trading price, yield, and total return of these funds can be adversely affected by several risk factors. To implement this cash strategy safely, investors should monitor whether market price fluctuations or sudden yield shifts might compromise their immediate capital preservation goals.

Interest rate changes can be sudden and unpredictable, influenced by government policy, monetary policy, inflation expectations, and the supply and demand for fixed-income securities. Short-duration fixed income is less exposed to these fluctuations than longer-duration securities, but sudden rate shifts can still cause short-term market movements that lead to temporary capital losses. Investors must evaluate this limitation when deciding between ultra-short instruments and slightly longer maturities, as even minor duration differences affect price sensitivity.

Furthermore, changes in interest rates can result in heightened volatility and lower liquidity in fixed-income markets. This can lead to tracking errors, which may be heightened during times of increased market volatility. Additionally, when interest rates fall, these funds face reinvestment risk, as they may be required to purchase lower-yielding bonds when their underlying holdings mature or are rebalanced. This creates a key decision checkpoint for managers who must anticipate declining rate environments and the resulting downward pressure on fund yields.

Lastly, secondary market trading poses its own risks. Investors may face a potential lack of an active market for fund shares (including trading halts), losses from trading in secondary markets, and disruptions in the creation and redemption process. In general, these ETFs can be expected to move up or down in value with the value of their applicable underlying indexes. This structural limitation means that secondary market liquidity is highly dependent on broader market stability and authorized participant activity.

Strategic Verdict: Which T-Bill ETF Fits Your Plan?

Choosing between SGOV, BIL, and SHV depends on your specific cash management horizon and cost sensitivity. SGOV offers the lowest expense ratio (0.09%) and focuses on the absolute shortest end of the curve (0 to 3 months), making it highly efficient for parking immediate cash. BIL offers a highly similar 1 to 3 month profile with deep liquidity, though at a slightly higher expense ratio of 0.1352%.

SHV is best suited for investors who want exposure to the broader 0 to 1 year Treasury market and are willing to accept slightly higher portfolio turnover (115%) and a 0.15% expense ratio in exchange for holding slightly longer-dated short-term paper. Regardless of your choice, ensure your cash strategy aligns with your broader asset allocation and liquidity needs. Investors should carefully weigh whether the potential yield pickup of longer maturities justifies the increased turnover and higher expense ratio.

Educational Disclaimer: This guide is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, legal, or tax advice. Treasury ETFs carry market risks, and their values fluctuate. Consult a qualified professional before making financial decisions.

Related reading

• Bonds guide