BND vs BNDW
BND vs BNDW
Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF vs Vanguard Total World Bond ETF
Quick Verdict
BND has a lower expense ratio. BND delivered stronger 1-year returns. BND offers more diversification with 10790 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BND | BNDW | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.05% | |
| AUM | $159.8B | $1.9B | |
| Dividend Yield | 3.94% | 2.84% | |
| Holdings | 17,528 | 4 | |
| YTD Return | -0.50% | -0.18% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.63% | +1.85% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +3.92% | +3.97% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -0.47% | -0.29% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 4.6% | 5.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -19.6% | -17.7% | |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | Apr 3, 2007 | Sep 4, 2018 |
BND vs BNDW Performance
Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND) is a ETF from Vanguard (US) and Vanguard Total World Bond ETF (BNDW) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year BND returned +2.63% while BNDW returned +1.85%. Year to date, BND is down 0.50% versus a loss of 0.18% for BNDW.
Over three years, BND compounded at +3.92% per year against +3.97% for BNDW; over five years the annualized figures are -0.47% and -0.29% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, BNDW has the edge at +0.88% annualized vs +0.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BNDW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 5.1% compared with 4.6% for BND. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -19.6% for BND and -17.7% for BNDW. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.97. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BND charges 0.03% per year while BNDW charges 0.05%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $5 annually, a gap of $2 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BND currently yields 3.94% against 2.84% for BNDW.
Holdings Overlap
BND and BNDW share 0 holdings out of 10793 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BND or BNDW?
BND has an expense ratio of 0.03% while BNDW charges 0.05%. BND is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $2 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BND or BNDW?
Over the past year BND returned +2.63% vs +1.85% for BNDW, so BND leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), BND annualized +0.68% vs +0.88% for BNDW. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BND or BNDW?
BNDW has been the more volatile fund at 5.1% annualized versus 4.6% for BND. Worst drawdown: BND -19.6% vs BNDW -17.7%.
Should I hold both BND and BNDW?
BND and BNDW have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between BND and BNDW?
BND and BNDW share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 10793 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BND or BNDW?
BND yields 3.94% while BNDW yields 2.84%, so BND currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.