SGOV, USFR, TFLO, and BIL are commonly considered when an investor wants to keep money productive without taking ordinary stock-market risk.
All four hold short-term U.S. Treasury exposure and distribute monthly. Their prices were nearly flat in the June 2026 Dividend Decoder snapshot, and their annualized total returns were tightly grouped.
That makes this less of a performance contest than a question of structure and portfolio use.
What is the quick answer for SGOV, USFR, TFLO, and BIL?
| Comparison | Practical difference |
|---|---|
| SGOV vs BIL | Both roll very short Treasury bills; SGOV targets roughly 0-3 months and BIL roughly 1-3 months. |
| SGOV vs USFR | SGOV owns fixed-rate Treasury bills, while USFR owns Treasury floating-rate notes whose coupons reset with short-term rates. |
| SGOV vs TFLO | The same structural split applies: very short bills in SGOV versus floating-rate Treasury notes in TFLO. |
| USFR vs TFLO | Both use Treasury floating-rate notes, so fees, trading conditions, portfolio rules, and account availability become useful tie-breakers. |
The June return gaps were too small to establish a durable winner. The first decision is whether the investor prefers a short Treasury-bill ladder or a floating-rate-note structure; the second is implementation.
June 2026 comparison
| Fund Ticker | Treasury Exposure | Dividend TTM | Price CAGR | Total Return CAGR | Payout Support Risk | Stability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SGOV | 0-3 month Treasury bills | 3.85% | 0.01% | 4.66% | Low | HIGH |
| USFR | Treasury floating-rate notes | 3.84% | 0.02% | 4.56% | Low | HIGH |
| TFLO | Treasury floating-rate notes | 3.89% | -0.03% | 4.67% | Low | HIGH |
| BIL | 1-3 month Treasury bills | 3.85% | -0.07% | 4.57% | Low | HIGH |
All four had complete evaluation windows, Low payout-support risk, and HIGH stability. Dividend Decoder also classified all four as cash-buffer candidates in this snapshot.
The spread between the highest and lowest Dividend TTM was only 0.05 percentage points. The spread between the highest and lowest Total Return CAGR was only 0.11 points. Those differences are too small to support a strong conclusion from recent performance alone.
SGOV vs BIL: short Treasury-bill ladders
SGOV holds Treasury bills with roughly zero to three months remaining, while BIL focuses on roughly one- to three-month bills.
Their June profiles were nearly identical. Both showed 3.85% Dividend TTM. SGOV had 0.01% Price CAGR and 4.66% Total Return CAGR, while BIL had -0.07% Price CAGR and 4.57% Total Return CAGR.
The defining feature is not the nine-basis-point total-return difference. It is that both continually roll very short fixed-rate Treasury bills. Their distribution levels will adjust as older bills mature and new bills are purchased at prevailing short-term rates.
For an investor, this is a straightforward cash-like structure: very short Treasury maturities, limited price movement in the observed window, and monthly distributions.
USFR vs TFLO: Treasury floating-rate notes
USFR and TFLO hold U.S. Treasury floating-rate notes rather than a pure ladder of short Treasury bills. The coupon on these notes resets with short-term Treasury rates, so their income also responds to changes in the rate environment.
USFR showed 3.84% Dividend TTM, 0.02% Price CAGR, and 4.56% Total Return CAGR. TFLO showed 3.89% Dividend TTM, -0.03% Price CAGR, and 4.67% Total Return CAGR.
Again, the result was effectively a tie at the level of this snapshot. Both had near-flat Price CAGR, Low payout-support risk, and HIGH stability.
The useful distinction is the floating-rate-note structure, not a temporary five- or eleven-basis-point advantage.
Why total return exceeded Dividend TTM
Each fund's Total Return CAGR was modestly above its Dividend TTM even though Price CAGR was close to zero.
Dividend TTM measures the trailing distribution amount relative to price. Total Return CAGR measures the compounded investor result over the evaluation window with distributions included. They use related but different periods and calculations, so the figures should not be expected to add together exactly.
The practical reading is that distributions generated nearly all of the observed return. There was no meaningful price-growth engine in these funds, which is consistent with a cash-buffer role.
The June month-over-month signal was small
Total Return CAGR declined by 0.06 percentage points for SGOV, TFLO, and BIL from May to June. USFR declined by 0.02 points.
Those changes were minor and broadly shared. They do not create a strong switching signal among the four funds. More importantly, future income will change as short-term Treasury rates change, so a trailing yield should not be treated as a locked return.
How I would compare the four
I would start with the job assigned to the money:
- Emergency or near-term funds need capital stability and ready access more than an extra few basis points of trailing yield.
- Money waiting for a planned purchase needs a time horizon that matches the cash-like role.
- A brokerage cash buffer may prioritize operational simplicity and the Treasury structure the investor already understands.
- A tactical allocation should not be mistaken for a long-term growth holding simply because recent yields were attractive.
After that, I would compare fund expenses, trading conditions, platform availability, and the exact index or portfolio rules using the latest issuer documents. Those implementation details are better tie-breakers than a 0.01% difference in a backward-looking yield snapshot.
What these funds do not provide
Cash-like does not mean identical to a bank deposit, and an ETF share price can move. These funds also do not offer the long-term growth engine of an equity portfolio. Their distribution rates can decline when short-term interest rates decline.
That is why I would avoid choosing among them by chasing whichever fund showed the highest trailing yield this month. The current leader can change as distributions roll through the calculation.
Bottom line
The June data showed four closely matched cash-like Treasury ETFs:
- SGOV and BIL delivered similar results through very short Treasury-bill exposure.
- USFR and TFLO delivered similar results through Treasury floating-rate notes.
- All four had Low payout-support risk, HIGH stability, and almost no annualized price movement.
- The observed performance gaps were too small to establish a durable winner.
For this group, structure and account-level implementation matter more than recent return ranking. The best use of the data is to confirm that the funds behaved like cash buffers, then choose the structure that fits the intended holding period and workflow.
You can review the same income, price-trend, total-return, payout-support, and stability signals in Dividend Decoder reports.
Note: Metrics are exported from Dividend Decoder as a partial snapshot; not investment advice.