Fund · iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF · measured from SEC filings
SGOV holdings
SGOV reports 23 holdings and behaves like 17.2 equally weighted ones, computed from its SEC Form N-PORT filing for 2026-05-31. The fact sheet publishes the first number; this page computes the second, and traces it across 25 quarters of filings.
Measured concentration
as of 2026-05-31Read this figure with the following in mind
100% held in short-term investment vehicles: this is a cash-like fund, and its holding count measures something different
The figure below is what the filing says, published unchanged. What it may not do is sit beside a plain long-only fund and be read as the same quantity. How comparability is decided.
Computed by this site from the fund's SEC Form N-PORT filing; what the measure does not tell you · every fund in one table · hold it with other funds? X-ray the mix. Pricing: 0.86% at a quoted market price (level 1), one issuer country.
What stands out
as of 2026-05-31SGOV's largest investment is U.S. Treasury Bills at 10.14% of net assets. U.S. Treasury Bills and U.S. Treasury Bills follow; the three together are 27.31%. Ten companies are 66.79% of the fund; the other 13 share the rest. Among the 12 short-term funds measured here, SGOV behaves like 17.2 holdings against a median of 9.5 — 1.8 times the median. Across 25 quarterly filings SGOV has become less concentrated: it behaved like 3.1 at 2020-05-31 and 17.2 at 2026-05-31. Between the 2026-02-28 and 2026-05-31 filings 22 positions were added and 22 dropped; 99.6% of the weight moved.
Each sentence is read from the fund's own SEC filing; the class median is computed across the comparable short-term funds on this site. Nothing here is a view on the fund.
Every filing since 2020
25Between 2020-05-31 and 2026-05-31, SGOV went from behaving like 3.1 equally weighted positions to 17.2 — 455% more, while its top ten went from 100% to 66.79% of net assets. Read across the funds on the concentration-over-time table.
| Period | Holdings | Effective | Top 10 | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-31 | 23 | 17.2 | 66.79% | 9.36% |
| 2026-02-28 | 23 | 15.7 | 71.33% | 10.05% |
| 2025-11-30 | 23 | 15.9 | 70.51% | 10.61% |
| 2025-08-31 | 22 | 14.5 | 75.92% | 12.61% |
| 2025-05-31 | 23 | 15.4 | 73.4% | 9.15% |
| 2025-02-28 | 19 | 12.2 | 83.05% | 11.63% |
| 2024-11-30 | 18 | 11.2 | 86.9% | 12.05% |
| 2024-08-31 | 19 | 12.6 | 80.77% | 13.22% |
Earlier filings (17 more, back to 2020-05-31)
| Period | Holdings | Effective | Top 10 | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-05-31 | 18 | 11.4 | 85.15% | 13.65% |
| 2024-02-29 | 20 | 11.1 | 85.71% | 13.45% |
| 2023-11-30 | 18 | 11.7 | 82.73% | 13.87% |
| 2023-08-31 | 17 | 12 | 86.02% | 11.92% |
| 2023-05-31 | 17 | 12.4 | 82.81% | 12.7% |
| 2023-02-28 | 14 | 11.1 | 87.39% | 13.11% |
| 2022-11-30 | 12 | 9.8 | 93.33% | 15.44% |
| 2022-08-31 | 13 | 9.6 | 96.16% | 13.29% |
| 2022-05-31 | 11 | 8.2 | 99.95% | 14.89% |
| 2022-02-28 | 17 | 9.8 | 91.08% | 14.28% |
| 2021-11-30 | 13 | 8.6 | 97.68% | 14.76% |
| 2021-08-31 | 8 | 4 | 100% | 39.38% |
| 2021-05-31 | 18 | 6.4 | 99.68% | 23.57% |
| 2021-02-28 | 22 | 4.5 | 97.1% | 37.49% |
| 2020-11-30 | 9 | 2.6 | 100% | 58.3% |
| 2020-08-31 | 8 | 4.3 | 100% | 30.29% |
| 2020-05-31 | 5 | 3.1 | 100% | 48.42% |
One row per filed reporting period, newest first, read from EDGAR. Quarterly because that is the public filing cadence. Rows marked * are published but held out of the comparison above; the methodology page says when and why.
Compared with, in the essays
5Overlap with other funds
21Measured against every other fund on this site, from the same filings. Combined effective holdings is how the pair behaves held in equal size.
| With | Overlap | Shared | Combined effective |
|---|---|---|---|
| SGOV vs AGG | 0.42% | 1 | 66.3 |
| SGOV vs ITOT | 0.17% | 1 | 54.4 |
| SGOV vs IVV | 0.12% | 1 | 51.5 |
| SGOV vs IFRA | 0.05% | 1 | 52.2 |
| SGOV vs BND | 0% | 0 | 67.3 |
| SGOV vs QQQ | 0% | 0 | 45.7 |
| SGOV vs QQQM | 0% | 0 | 44.7 |
| SGOV vs SCHD | 0% | 0 | 44.7 |
| SGOV vs SMH | 0% | 0 | 30.7 |
| SGOV vs VEA | 0% | 0 | 64 |
11 more pairs, down to 0% overlap
| With | Overlap | Shared | Combined effective |
|---|---|---|---|
| SGOV vs VGT | 0% | 0 | 32.1 |
| SGOV vs VIG | 0% | 0 | 53.3 |
| SGOV vs VOO | 0% | 0 | 51.5 |
| SGOV vs VT | 0% | 0 | 61.5 |
| SGOV vs VTI | 0% | 0 | 54.6 |
| SGOV vs VTV | 0% | 0 | 58.3 |
| SGOV vs VUG | 0% | 0 | 36.8 |
| SGOV vs VWO | 0% | 0 | 48.4 |
| SGOV vs VXUS | 0% | 0 | 64.6 |
| SGOV vs XLK | 0% | 0 | 33.4 |
| SGOV vs XLU | 0% | 0 | 37 |
Largest positions, as filed
as of 2026-05-31The 15 largest of 23 positions in SGOV's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: SGOV.csv.gz.
| # | Position | Weight | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States of America | 9.36% | 9.4% |
| 2 | United States of America | 7.98% | 17.3% |
| 3 | United States of America | 7.88% | 25.2% |
| 4 | United States of America | 7.69% | 32.9% |
| 5 | United States of America | 6.55% | 39.4% |
| 6 | United States of America | 6.34% | 45.8% |
| 7 | United States of America | 6.24% | 52.0% |
| 8 | United States of America | 5.53% | 57.6% |
| 9 | United States of America | 4.69% | 62.3% |
| 10 | United States of America | 4.54% | 66.8% |
| 11 | United States of America | 4.23% | 71.0% |
| 12 | United States of America | 4.22% | 75.2% |
| 13 | United States of America | 4.12% | 79.4% |
| 14 | United States of America | 4.03% | 83.4% |
| 15 | United States of America | 3.79% | 87.2% |
Returns the fund reported
2020-05 – 2026-05Monthly total returns from Item B.5 of SGOV's own filings, 73 months on record. Not computed here and not from a price feed.
Cross-checked against a series computed separately from prices: median difference 0.01 percentage points over 71 months, which is roughly the distributions. Every month with the filing it came from: SGOV.json · all funds.
Who borrows SGOV's shares
2026-05-31The fund lends its holdings, and Item B.4.a of the filing names every firm holding them. At 2026-05-31, $432m was out to 3 borrowers, 0.47% of net assets. The largest, STATE STREET BANK & TRUST COMPANY, held 64.7% of it.
| Borrower | On loan | Share of the loan |
|---|---|---|
| STATE STREET BANK & TRUST COMPANY | $280m | 64.7% |
| MORGAN STANLEY & CO LLC | $124m | 28.8% |
| JP MORGAN SECURITIES LLC | $28m | 6.5% |
Cash collateral reported against the loan: 0.48% of net assets, 102% of the amount lent. That is a floor on the collateral, not the whole of it — collateral the fund does not hold as a position is not in this filing, so a figure under 100% is not evidence of under-collateralisation. How that figure behaves across all funds. Every quarter SGOV has filed, with each borrower: SGOV.json · all funds.
Since the previous filing
2026-02-28 → 2026-05-3123 positions became 23: 22 added (99.6% of the fund at the later date), 22 dropped (99.5% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 99.6%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of SGOV compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.
| Largest increases | 2026-02-28 | 2026-05-31 | Largest decreases | 2026-02-28 | 2026-05-31 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BlackRock Funds III | 0.47% | 0.42% |
New: United States of America (9.36%), United States of America (7.98%), United States of America (7.88%), United States of America (7.69%), United States of America (6.55%), United States of America (6.34%). Gone: United States of America (10.05%), United States of America (9.10%), United States of America (8.43%), United States of America (7.92%), United States of America (7.92%), United States of America (6.14%).
Asset categories and pricing
as of 2026-05-31100.00% short-term investment as filed; 0.9% carried at a quoted market price (fair-value level 1). Categories and levels are the filer's; what a low level-1 share does and does not mean is in the measure's page.
Neighbours by effective holdings, short-term investment funds
10Every measured short-term investment fund lined up by how many holdings it behaves like; these sit either side of SGOV (17.2). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.
| Fund | Reports | Behaves like | Top ten | As of |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSFU Direxion Daily MSFT Bull 2X Shares | 6 | 4.2 * | 100% | 2026-07-31 |
| TSLL Direxion Daily TSLA Bull 2X Shares | 6 | 5 * | 100% | 2026-07-31 |
| ALLW State Street(R) Bridgewater(R) All Weather(R) ETF | 41 | 8.2 * | 78.13% | 2026-07-31 |
| BIL State Street(R) SPDR(R) Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF | 24 | 14.9 | 74.44% | 2026-06-30 |
| XHLF BondBloxx Bloomberg Six Month Target Duration US Treasury ETF | 28 | 15.2 | 75.74% | 2026-07-31 |
| BILS State Street(R) SPDR(R) Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF | 29 | 23.8 | 51.34% | 2026-06-30 |
| CMDY iShares Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Strategy ETF | 88 | 35.1 * | 40.84% | 2026-07-31 |
| SHV iShares 0-1 Year Treasury Bond ETF | 64 | 38 | 37.93% | 2026-05-31 |
| COMT iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF | 160 | 55.8 * | 24.21% | 2026-07-31 |
| BKUI BNY Mellon Ultra Short Income ETF | 157 | 80.5 | 22.91% | 2026-06-30 |
Measures applied in the essays
8Essays that examine SGOV
45-
The Real Cost of Tail-Risk Hedging: Put Options vs Cash vs Trend Following
Protective puts pay off precisely when you need them, but the continuously rolled premium is a persistent drag — the academic estimate is a few percent per...
-
Volatility Targeting: How Scaling Exposure to a Risk Budget Changes Long-Term Outcomes
Volatility targeting scales exposure inversely to expected volatility so the portfolio holds a roughly constant risk budget — it works because volatility is...
-
VYMI vs IDV: International Dividend ETFs — Yield, Country Risk, and the Currency Drag
IDV pays a materially higher distribution yield (5.5% vs 3.7%), but that gap did not translate into higher total return over five or ten years — VYMI edged...
-
DBC vs PDBC vs GSG: What a Broad Commodity ETF Actually Holds — and Why Roll Yield Matters
All three hold futures, not physical barrels or bushels — so the return you receive is spot price movement plus (or minus) roll yield, and the roll term is...
-
MUB vs BND: When Municipal Bonds Beat Taxable Bonds — The Tax-Equivalent Yield Math
On stated yield, BND (3.95%) pays more than MUB (3.16%) — but MUB's income is exempt from federal tax, so the honest comparison is the tax-equivalent yield,...
-
TLT vs IEF vs SHY: Building a Treasury Duration Ladder for Different Rate Scenarios
TLT, IEF, and SHY charge the same 0.15% expense ratio, so this decision is not about cost — it is entirely about how much interest-rate duration you want to...
-
XLV vs VHT: Two Ways to Own Healthcare — Concentration, Fees, and Defensive Behavior
XLV holds roughly 60 large-cap S&P 500 healthcare names; VHT holds around 400 across the full U.S. cap spectrum — the same sector, two different portfolios....
-
A 2026 Rate-Cut Path: Bonds vs Cash When Yields Fall (SGOV vs BND)
The last five years rewarded cash (SGOV) and punished duration (BND) — but that record was set during a rate-hiking regime, and it is the wrong template for...
-
Spot Bitcoin ETFs and the Long-Term Core: An Honest Assessment of Role and Risk
A spot Bitcoin ETF like IBIT solves the custody and access problem cleanly, but the wrapper does not change the underlying asset's risk profile — it still...
-
VNQ vs SCHH: Two REIT Index ETFs — Holdings, Yield, and Realized Risk
VNQ and SCHH are both broad U.S. equity REIT index funds with nearly identical realized volatility (~18.8% vs ~18.7% over five years), so the decision...
-
BND vs AGG: The Two Total-Bond Giants — Duration, Yield, and Tracking Difference
BND and AGG charge the identical 0.03% expense ratio, yield within two basis points of each other, and posted max drawdowns within 0.1 percentage points...
-
GLD vs. DBMF: Gold vs. AI-Managed Managed Futures (Trend Following)
GLD compounded at roughly 20.0% per year over the past five years; DBMF at 8.5%. Reading that gap as "gold won" misunderstands what DBMF is built to do....
-
The "All-Weather" AI Portfolio: Combining Diversification with Predictive Power
Dalio's "all-weather" idea is sound on its merits — risk-balanced exposure across four macro environments — and is implementable today with five or six...
-
SGOV vs Gold ETFs: Two Defenses That Hedge Different Risks
SGOV and gold ETFs both get labelled "defensive," but they hedge different risks. SGOV defends against equity drawdowns by holding T-bill principal stable...
-
Gold vs Bonds in 2026: Two Different Hedges, Two Different Risks
Gold and bonds get grouped as "safe havens", but they hedge different risks — real rates and fiat credibility for gold; nominal yields and growth...
-
Interest Rate Cuts in 2026: What Happens to Stocks, Bonds, and Gold?
The Fed has already eased roughly 170 bp from the 2024 peak. With CPI back at 3.9% YoY and real policy rates now slightly negative, the textbook "rates...
-
Reading 2026 Capital Flows: The Macro Arithmetic Behind the "Smart Money" Narrative
"Smart money" is mostly a narrative device. The honest version of the question is which 2026 capital flows are large and persistent enough to look...
-
Roles Before Tickers: A Framework for Long-Horizon ETF Allocation
A durable long-horizon portfolio is a system of roles — broad equity, factor tilt, income/quality, defensive cash — not a list of favorite tickers. The five...
-
The Arithmetic of a -30% Drawdown: Recovery Math, Allocation, and What the Data Actually Says
A -30% drawdown requires a +43% return to break even; -50% requires +100%. The asymmetry is the whole story. Across the 2021–2026 window, realized maximum...
-
Asset Allocation in Practice: How 10% Weight Shifts Reshape Long-Term Outcomes
Across the trailing five years (2021-2026), a defensive blend (VOO 50 / SCHD 30 / SGOV 20) produced a roughly 10.1% blended CAGR, while a growth-tilted...
-
The Rule of 72 in Practice: What Realized ETF Returns Say About Doubling Time
Applied to realized 5-year CAGRs, the Rule of 72 gives doubling estimates ranging from 4.1 years (QQQM) to 20.6 years (SGOV) — but that range collapses...
-
How to Start ETF Investing: The Complete 2026 Roadmap
Starting an ETF portfolio is a sequence of four decisions — horizon, account type, allocation, rebalancing rule. Get that sequence right and the ticker...
-
Hedging a Leveraged Sleeve: A Framework Built Before the Volatility Arrives
Hedging a leveraged equity sleeve is not the same problem as hedging an unleveraged one. Daily-reset products are path-dependent, so the shape of a drawdown...
-
Infrastructure in a 30-Year Core: What the Data on XLU and PAVE Actually Shows
"Infrastructure" is two different factor exposures wearing one label: XLU is regulated-utility income, PAVE is industrial build-out cyclicality. Treating...
-
Rebalancing After an AI Concentration Run: Where the Trimmed Capital Actually Belongs
Daryanani-style threshold bands (±15% of target) reduce rebalance frequency and tax drag versus naive calendar rebalancing — but only if the chosen...
-
The Impact of 2026 Energy Policies on Your Long-Term Portfolio
Five thematic ways to express a 2026 energy-policy view — PAVE, GRID, NLR, XLU, VXUS — have produced very different 5-year returns, but the risk-adjusted...
-
What SGOV and Gold Actually Do: A Quant Look at Defensive Assets in 2026
SGOV's five-year realized volatility is 0.2% and its worst drawdown was 0.03% — it behaves like cash with a yield, not like a "bond." The 3.9% distribution...
-
Utilities in a Rate-Cut Cycle: What the AI Power Demand Story Does — and Doesn't — Justify
The "AI data center demand plus rate cuts equals utility re-rating" thesis is plausible — and largely consensus. Five-year realized data show utility ETFs...
-
The 90/10 Allocation Framework: Pairing Broad Equity, AI Infrastructure, and a Cash Sleeve
The 90/10 template — 90% diversified equity, 10% short-duration Treasury cash — is best understood as a 100% equity policy with a rebalancing buffer, not a...
-
Sizing an AI-Infrastructure Sleeve: VOO, QQQM, XLU, IFRA, and SGOV Through a Long-Horizon Lens
The "AI infrastructure" label sits across three different ETF wrappers — utilities (XLU), industrial buildout (IFRA), and the consuming software layer...
-
Planning the Handoff: A Framework for Tax-Efficient Wealth Transfer
Tax-efficient wealth transfer is mostly a cost-basis problem: gift during life and you trade the step-up at death for decades of compounding in the...
-
"The Curse of Sequence Risk" – Protecting Your 30-Year Plan from a Pre-Retirement Crash
Sequence-of-returns risk is path-dependent: identical 30-year averages produce wildly different outcomes once withdrawals start, because losses early in...
-
The Boredom Plateau: Why Year 10 Tests More Portfolios Than the First Crash
The greatest risk to a 30-year portfolio isn't a crash; it's the quiet stretch around years five to ten when nothing dramatic happens and the holder reaches...
-
Re-evaluating the 4% Rule: Sequence Risk, Yield, and Dynamic Withdrawal in 2026
The 4% rule was calibrated by Bengen (1994) on 1926-1976 US data. It never promised safety — only a ~95% historical success rate over a 30-year horizon,...
-
Buy and Hold in 2026: What Rebalancing Discipline Actually Adds to Long-Term ETF Returns
Buy-and-hold is still the right base case for long-horizon ETF investors, but pure drift quietly converts a balanced portfolio into something the investor...
-
SGOV and Gold in a 4.5% World: Rethinking the Defensive Sleeve for 2026
With SGOV's distribution yield at 3.9% and the 10-year Treasury at 4.47% (FRED, asof 2026-05-14), the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding gold is...
-
XLE in a Long-Term Core: The Rebalancing Math Behind Cyclical Sector Sleeves
XLE's trailing 5-year CAGR of 22.3% sits roughly 840 basis points above VOO, but the same fund's 10-year CAGR is 10.7% — a regime readout, not a structural...
-
Energy ETFs in the 2026 Hormuz Shock: When Geopolitical Risk Premia Show Up in Returns
XLE delivered a 22.3% five-year CAGR, but most of that compounded off the 2020 trough; the realized 10-year CAGR of 10.7% is a more honest through-cycle...
-
SGOV, VOO, and QQQM Under Geopolitical Stress: What Oil, Yields, and Volatility Reveal
SGOV's effective duration near zero made it behave as designed during the recent oil-driven inflation scare — essentially flat while the equity sleeves...
-
Iran–U.S. Conflict and Oil Markets: Why the Strait of Hormuz Matters for Global Investors
Roughly 20% of global petroleum liquids — about 20 million barrels per day — pass through a single 33 km channel, and bypass pipeline capacity is less than...
-
Is It Better to Buy Gold ETF or Physical Gold in 2026? (Silver ETF vs Physical Silver Explained)
Gold ETFs (GLD, IAU, GLDM) and physical bullion are not interchangeable substitutes — they hedge different layers of risk, with different costs and a...
-
SGOV's Role in a Long-Term Portfolio: Yield, Realized Risk, and the Cash Floor
SGOV is an $85B short-Treasury ETF that has compounded at 3.5% per year over its five-year live history with 0.2% annualized volatility and a max drawdown...
-
Building a 2-Layer ETF Portfolio: Stability Below, Compounding Above
-
VOO vs QQQM: 54% of Your Money Is the Same Stocks, and QQQM Behaves Like 32 Holdings to VOO's 52
-
How to Build Long-Term Wealth with ETFs (Beginner Guide 2026)
Mentions are detected across the full text of every article, so an appearance may be a passing comparison rather than the subject. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell — see the disclaimer.