Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
BOXX vs MBB: how they differ
BOXX is a short-term Treasury fund and MBB a bond index fund, and over the year BOXX returned more, +4.0% against −0.1%.
Alpha Architect 1-3 Month Box ETF and iShares MBS ETF.
| BOXX Alpha Architect 1-3 Month Box ETF | MBB iShares MBS ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Alpha | iShares |
| What it is | 1-3 Month Box | Mbs |
| Total return, 1 year | +4.0% | −0.1% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −13.5 pts | −17.6 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | not filed | 11144 |
BOXX in plain words
BOXX is a cash and treasury bills tracking the 1-3 Month Box. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +4.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.19% a year.
MBB in plain words
MBB is a bond fund tracking the Mbs. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −0.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. It sat 3.3% below its high of Feb 27, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, BOXX or MBB?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, BOXX returned +4.0% and MBB returned −0.1%, so BOXX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, BOXX or MBB?
- BOXX charges 0.19% a year and MBB charges 0.04%, so MBB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, BOXX against MBB, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/BOXX-MBB Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources