VTG ETF – Vanguard Launches Total US Treasury Bond Market ETF

Vanguard launched the VTG ETF for the total U.S. treasury bond market in July 2025. I briefly summarize it here.

Disclosure:  Some of the links on this page are referral links. At no additional cost to you, if you choose to make a purchase or sign up for a service after clicking through those links, I may receive a small commission. This allows me to continue producing high-quality content on this site and pays for the occasional cup of coffee. I have first-hand experience with every product or service I recommend, and I recommend them because I genuinely believe they are useful, not because of the commission I may get. Read more here.

VTG ETF at a Glance:

After previously having no singular product to capture the entire US treasury bond market in one fell swoop, Vanguard has finally launched a new ETF for it. Its ticker is VTG.

The US treasury bond market is the largest and most liquid segment of fixed income investments. Buying the total US treasury market of short, intermediate, and long bonds provides effective intermediate exposure usually with a weighted average maturity of around 7 years. Previously, Vanguard investors were limited to its intermediate treasury fund VGIT for such exposure, which actually has a slightly shorter effective maturity of about 5 years. More on that comparison later.

In the launch press release, Vanguard described VTG as follows:

“VTG offers a low-cost, comprehensive index solution for broad exposure to the U.S. Treasury market, the largest and most liquid segment of fixed income. With an expense ratio of 0.03%, this ETF simplifies all-curve exposure, making it an efficient solution for investors seeking broad Treasury market coverage.”

VTG vs. GOVT

GOVT from iShares has long been the go-to product for the total US treasury bond market with a history of over a decade and AUM of nearly $30 billion. Vanguard has undercut them from the jump with VTG with an expense ratio of 0.03%, whereas GOVT costs 0.05%, so it will be interesting to see if investors start moving from GOVT to VTG and/or if iShares lowers GOVT's fee to compete.

I'm surprised it took them this long, as GOVT has been around since 2012.

Here's a quick comparison table for VTG vs. GOVT:

If you own one versus the other, you're not going to have a meaningfully different investment outcome.

The fee difference is real but small in absolute terms. VTG at 0.03% saves $20 per year per $100,000 invested versus GOVT at 0.05%. Over 30 years, that compounds into something real, but let's not pretend it's the most important decision you'll make this decade.

Where they genuinely differ is liquidity. GOVT trades around 8 million shares a day. VTG trades around 20,000. For a retail investor placing a limit order on a $10,000 purchase once a month, this doesn't matter at all. For an institution moving $50 million at a time, GOVT is the obvious choice. Since you're probably not an institution, this matters less than it sounds.

As of early April 2026, GOVT has not cut its fee in response to VTG's launch. Whether it eventually does remains to be seen.

In the interest of full disclosure, while we're on the subject, it's also arguably worth noting that SPDR has a comparable product which is SPTB, which launched in mid-2024, has about $100 million in assets, and also has a fee of 0.03%.

VTG vs. VGIT

I briefly mentioned earlier that Vanguard investors had to use VGIT for intermediate treasuries for similar exposure.

Vanguard has offered maturity-specific Treasury ETFs for well over a decade. Before VTG existed, if you wanted the actual total Treasury curve with Vanguard funds, you had to build it yourself with VGSH, VGIT, and VGLT. Here's how the Vanguard bond ETF lineup shakes out in terms of durations:

All charge the same fee. All hold 100% U.S. Treasuries. The difference is what part of the curve you're getting.

The case for VTG over VGIT: If you're a total market indexing purist – and many Bogleheads are – then VTG is the logical extension of that philosophy into Treasury-only fixed income side of the portfolio. Own them all, weighted by what the market actually has outstanding. Don't try to pick whether short, intermediate, or long maturities will outperform. Just own the whole thing and move on with your life.

VTG also gives you slightly more duration (5.7 vs. 4.9 years), which means a bit more price appreciation when rates fall, and a bit more price pressure when rates rise. Not dramatically more, but enough to show up over a rate cycle.

The case for VGIT over VTG: VGIT's 4.9-year duration is a cleaner, more predictable target. The intermediate part of the curve – the 3-10 year range – is where most investors want to be anyway. It avoids the long end's volatility (VGLT fell nearly 30% in 2022) while still capturing meaningful duration. If you want the classic “intermediate Treasury” allocation that has decades of research behind it as a portfolio ballast tool, VGIT is the proven choice. It's also $40 billion larger than VTG, with commensurately tighter bid-ask spreads.

VTG vs. BND

Similarly, Bogleheads often prefer total market index funds to construct portfolios. They typically go for Vanguard funds like BND for the total US bond market. I'll be curious to see if many choose to hone in a bit more on exclusively US treasuries now that they can still do so with a total market index fund here with VTG.

BND is the default bond fund in virtually every 3-fund portfolio template. It holds over 11,000 bonds across the full investment-grade universe: U.S. Treasuries (~49%), mortgage-backed securities (~20%), investment-grade corporates (~23%), and smaller slices of agencies, CMBS, and ABS. VTG holds exactly one thing: nominal U.S. Treasury bonds.

Looking at that table, you might notice the duration is essentially identical – 5.7 years for both – for the aame rate sensitivity on the surface. But the composition underneath is completely different, and it makes a bigger difference than most people realize.

BND carries real exposure to corporate bonds, which correlate more with equities during market stress, which I've gone into detail on elsewhere. In 2008, when you most needed your bond allocation to hold up while your stocks were getting annihilated, pure intermediate Treasuries returned +13.3%, while BND – weighed down by corporates that fell alongside equities – returned just +5.1%. That's more than 8 percentage points of difference in the exact year your bond sleeve was supposed to save you.

Larry Swedroe, William Bernstein, and David Swensen have all made some version of this argument: keep your bonds clean and take credit risk on the equity side, letting the bond sleeve be the portfolio's pure ballast. A Financial Planning Association study confirmed the pattern of government-heavy bond portfolios outperformed blended ones during the 2008 drawdown.

Convexity is a subtler advantage. Plain Treasuries have positive convexity – when rates fall, their prices rise more than duration alone predicts, and when rates rise, they fall slightly less. BND holds roughly 20% mortgage-backed securities, which have negative convexity. As rates drop, homeowners refinance, returning your principal early and capping your price upside. VTG gets the full benefit of falling rates. BND gets a structural haircut on that same move.

As I've hinted at plenty of times elsewhere, the equity correlation gap is the portfolio-construction punchline. VTG is invariably going to have a lower correlation to stocks than BND, making a meaningful difference in periods of market turmoil, which is usually when we rely on bonds.

So why does anyone choose BND? A few reasons:

BND typically yields 20-40 basis points more than comparable-duration Treasury funds, reflecting the credit spread on its corporate holdings. In tax-advantaged accounts where state-tax treatment doesn't apply, that yield advantage is real income. BND is also the default in many 401(k) plans. And for investors who genuinely want exposure to the full investment-grade bond market, not just Treasuries, BND delivers exactly that. Bogleheads often blindly subscribe to a “total market” approach wholesale without necessarily knowing or caring about the nuance of the underlying mechanics of the specific holdings.

Is VTG a Good Investment?

So is VTG a good investment? Probably, if it suits your needs.

VTG is a solid fund that arrived a decade late to a party GOVT has been hosting since 2012. That's not necessarily a problem; Vanguard is known for being slow and right, not fast and flashy. But it does mean VTG has a long runway to close the liquidity and AUM gap with the incumbent.

For most retail buy-and-hold investors, VTG vs. GOVT is a 2-basis-point fee difference decision. Period. Both funds are functionally identical in terms of exposure and portfolio construction. Vanguard's distribution network should grow its AUM over time.

The more interesting strategic question is VTG vs. BND. If you've been defaulting to BND because it's what the Bogleheads 3 Fund Portfolio calls for, it's worth actually running the state-tax math for your specific situation if you're using taxable space. In California or New York, VTG's after-tax yield can beat BND's pre-tax yield despite a lower nominal coupon. You also may want to consider the aforementioned correlation difference and purported “crisis alpha” of solely using treasuries on the fixed income side.

For investors who want a clean, cheap, all-curve Treasury allocation from the most trusted name in index investing, VTG delivers exactly that. It's not flashy and it doesn't do anything complicated. It just owns all the Treasury bonds, at minimal cost, and gets out of the way. That's probably what you wanted in the first place.

What do you think of this new bond fund from Vanguard? Let me know in the comments.

Disclosures: None.

Disclaimer:  While I love diving into investing-related data and playing around with backtests, this is not financial advice, investing advice, or tax advice. The information on this website is for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only. Investment products discussed (ETFs, mutual funds, etc.) are for illustrative purposes only. It is not a research report. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell, or otherwise transact in any of the products mentioned. I always attempt to ensure the accuracy of information presented but that accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Do your own due diligence. I mention M1 Finance a lot around here. M1 does not provide investment advice, and this is not an offer or solicitation of an offer, or advice to buy or sell any security, and you are encouraged to consult your personal investment, legal, and tax advisors. Hypothetical examples used, such as historical backtests, do not reflect any specific investments, are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be considered an offer to buy or sell any products. All investing involves risk, including the risk of losing the money you invest. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of other parties mentioned. Read my lengthier disclaimer here.