Which returned more over the last year, AIRR or TLT?

In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, AIRR returned +15.0% and TLT returned −6.4%, so AIRR returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.

Which is cheaper, AIRR or TLT?

AIRR charges 0.69% a year and TLT charges 0.15%, so TLT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Are AIRR and TLT the same kind of fund?

No. AIRR is a thematic ETF and TLT is an index ETF, so they are built for different jobs. The table compares what both publish: return, cost and what each actually holds.

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

AIRR vs TLT: how they differ

Over the year AIRR returned more, +15.0% against −6.4%, and TLT charges 0.15% against 0.69%.

First Trust RBA American Industrial Renaissance ETF and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, AIRR and TLT hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in AIRR	Only in TLT
IES Holdings, Inc. 3.83%	TREASURY BOND (2OLD) 4.16%
Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc 3.38%	TREASURY BOND (OLD) 4.05%
SPX Technologies 3.10%	TREASURY BOND (OTR) 1.03%
BWX Technologies, Inc. 3.09%	TREASURY BOND 0.02%
Owens Corning 3.03%
Nextpower Inc. (Class A) 2.89%
Saia, Inc. 2.83%
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 2.77%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Sep 10, 2026.

AIRR and TLT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
	AIRR First Trust RBA American Industrial Renaissance ETF	TLT iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF
Where it sits	Thematic ETF	Core index fund
Issuer	First Trust	iShares
What it is	Reshoring and manufacturing	20+ year Treasuries
Total return, 1 year	+15.0%	−6.4%
S&P 500 over the same days	+17.5%	+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500	−2.5 pts	−23.9 pts
Expense ratio	0.69%	0.15%
Holdings	58	41

AIRR in plain words

By weight, 6% of AIRR's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 100%. The top ten holdings are 30% of the fund across 58 positions, as published by its issuer for Sep 10, 2026. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 the fund returned +15.0% with distributions reinvested against +17.5% for the S&P 500, so a holder was behind by 2.5 pts. It sits 19.5% below its all-time high of Jun 22, 2026.

TLT in plain words

TLT is a bond fund tracking the 20+ year Treasuries. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −6.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. It sat 42.9% below its high of Aug 4, 2020 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, AIRR or TLT?: In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, AIRR returned +15.0% and TLT returned −6.4%, so AIRR returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, AIRR or TLT?: AIRR charges 0.69% a year and TLT charges 0.15%, so TLT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Are AIRR and TLT the same kind of fund?: No. AIRR is a thematic ETF and TLT is an index ETF, so they are built for different jobs. The table compares what both publish: return, cost and what each actually holds.

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.

AIRR against TLT, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, AIRR against TLT, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/airr-vs-tlt Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources