lessons from fishing :
it is assumed that people realize the MF is not updated daily, and the overlap tool shows in order of combined weight, not in order of weight similarity.
that being said, i had to go all the way to ~30 on the list to find a stock not in both.
up to that point, the weight difference looked to be usually ~0.5%.
when you consider the NAV is ~30X different (w/ similar median mkt caps), and has the same managers, i stand by my view that these equity sleeves are pretty much being run the same. differences in weights are probably just timing and reporting lags.
and just to be very clear, these different vehicles w/giroux serve to provide a loose commitment to different levels of asset exposure, not explicitly to vary in how that asset is expressed.

Their MMF competitors would be Treasury MMFs, both for security quality (Treasuries backed by the US government) and IMHO more importantly, for state income tax exemption.
If you can't find a very cheap Treasury only MMF (e.g. no low min cheap funds at Schwab or at Fidelity), then a 0-3 month Treasury ETF can fill that gap. While costs do matter, if I owned SGOV (0.09% ER), I don't think I would jump ship for Vanguard's new shorter term ETF (0.07% ER).
If I were still investing at Vanguard, I would carefully consider whether the added limited volatility of an ETF were worth at best a small increase in return over VUSXX.
Going longer, with Treasuries maturing in up to a full year, theory says one will get better returns in exchange for added volatility. I still buy that theory in the face of data that contradicts that - giving a whole new meaning to faith-based investing :-)
See Portfolio Visualizer comparing iShares (SHV), Invesco (TBLL), and Goldman Sachs (GBIL) with 3 mo Treasuries (proxy for cash). At least it does show that the cheapest ETF (TBILL, 0.08% ER) comes out best in this space where costs really should be paramount.
PV comparison
Something to keep in mind is whether the Vanguard ETFs will be 100% invested in Treasuries. You don't get a tax break for repurchase agreements (see, e.g. FZFXX). While VUSXX is now about 98% Treasuries, a couple of years ago it dipped as low as 50%+ (from memory). Previously it had always held 100% in Treasuries and suddenly changed. In light of that, it remains to be seen what percentage of these ETFs are really invested in true Treasuries.

Thank you, Joe. I tried to place the trade and 25161FZX9 is no longer available at Schwab (was never available at Fido).

I bought today when the dealers were selling them in the secondary market. Transaction fees applies. Schwab quote includes the transaction fees.
Not yet available at Fidelity

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/2035827/000110465924120578/tm2422492d3_n1aa.htm
Summary prospectus:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2035827/000110465924123184/a24-22492_6497k.htm

Fund Allocations (Cumulative), 10/31/24
Small reductions in stocks. The changes for OEFs + ETFs were based on a total AUM of about $38.42 trillion in the previous month, so +/- 1% change was about +/- $384.2 billion. Also note that these changes were from both fund inflows/outflows & price changes. #ICI #Funds #OEFs #ETFs
OEFs: Stocks 53.07%, Hybrids 5.76%, Bonds 17.95%, M-Mkt 23.23%
ETFs: Stocks 82.05%, Hybrids 0.40%, Bonds 17.55%, M-Mkt N/A
OEFs & ETFs: Stocks 61.62%, Hybrids 4.36%, Bonds 17.84%, M-Mkt 17.17%
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1749/thread

Thank you, Joe. I tried to place the trade and 25161FZX9 is no longer available at Schwab (was never available at Fido).

Yesterday's post -"3130B3W82 - Inventory at Fidelity and not at Schwab."
Today, I bought more of and whatever was left of this new issue. Currently, at Fidelity the highest yield of new issue Agencies maturing in 2034 is 5.5% (only one issue). If you would like a higher yield from a new issue Agency, you have to go to 2044 maturity.
I am inclined to wait until after Thanksgiving for more new issue Agency offerings.

As the US exchanges haven't decided on this yet, the likely 24/5 trading is by using foreign exchanges or private trading involving willing market-makers, hedge-funds, and firms' inventories.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm thinking. Or Schwab's own dark pools ... whatever, should be interesting.

As the US exchanges haven't decided on this yet, the likely 24/5 trading is by using foreign exchanges or private trading involving willing market-makers, hedge-funds, and firms' inventories.

Today in ThinkDesktop I see certain stocks now showing a beige icon indicating it's available for 24x5 trading. Not sure how they're picking them since only INTC and EXC are showing it on my watchlist, while other 'big' US names are not. Guess it's a slow roll-out..... I'll try to see what their bid/ask is like during the late local news sometime .... or maybe on the way back from the bathroom at 3AM if I remember and am so inclined. :)

Laid on a zero-cost (actually a .17 credit) at the open for a Feb 25 collar on my WMB position that's got 75% gains since January.

A quick search of their site does not show these ETFs are out yet.
I am interested in the Hedge Equity ETF so I can move PHEFX out of my IRA.
Edit: The draft prospectus is dated Jan 17, 2025

Just posted all ratings and flows to MFO Premium site, using Refinitiv data drop from Friday, 22 November, reflecting risk and return metrics thru October and month-to-date (MTD) thru yesterday. Flows are through Friday, 15 November.

Summary prospectus:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1593547/000139834424020614/fp0090912-10_497k.htm

If you want to make more, forget about words like "safe" "investment grade" "risk" "in the past it did terrible". Success comes from an uptrend with lower volatility (in my case)...and good trading.
If you want to be safe with low risk and hold for years, you will miss opportunities. What I find funny that my so-called risky funds had lower volatility and great returns. Nothing is guaranteed, of course. Just compare DODIX to CLOZ
See one year return for the above 5 funds (https://schrts.co/PJYGjPTK)

Old draft - added a bit on Strong Advantage (historical ultra-short fund illustrating the need to look beyond monthly returns if one takes on a little risk). Other than that, text is as drafted. Too much to go back and reedit.
I was a bit surprised by the differences in worst Quarter vs best Quarter relative to the same IG corp credit. As the article says, do not put your short term cash needs into this fund. So, I was wrong in using JAAA as a cash substitute!
Different readers, different takeaways. What I read seemed to say the opposite, viz. that AAA CLO funds could serve as a cash substitute:

Some investors – not wanting to put their short-term cash reserves at risk – may feel uneasy with any volatility within their short-duration bucket. ... we believe many investors are too cautious in this regard and could handle more volatility in their short-duration bucket in exchange for higher potential returns. Historically, despite occasional drawdowns, AAA CLOs have still ended up comfortably ahead of cash over the long term.

You may be focusing on the "long term" above. That doesn't rule out reliable shorter term performance. Perhaps it is worth examining what one expects out of a cash substitute. If it's absolute stability, then no bond funds will do. Otherwise, the field is open.
Before the GFC, there were a bevy of what are broadly termed "enhanced cash" funds. They took tiny steps out from MMFs along the duration spectrum. iMoneyNet has a taxonomy I still like:

• Cash Plus: <180 day duration, includes some LT &ge:A-; good for investing 3-6 months
  
• Enhanced Cash: 0.5-1 year duration, includes some LT ≥BBB; expect to hold at least 6 months;
  
• Ultrashort: 0.5-2 year duration, includes some LT LT ≥BBB; expect to hold at least 6 months;

2006 piece on enhanced cash funds from Barclay's
AAA CLOs seem to fall somewhere in the Cash Plus to Enhanced Cash range. If you're expecting to draw large amounts of cash within, say, a month, this is not for you. But then neither is a six month CD.
I find I'm thinking about these AAA CLOs the way one should have thought about Strong Advantage (STADX) when it was still a Strong fund (1990s - 2005). Something that one could use to hold cash, but not short term cash. Here's how its 2001 prospectus read:

[The fund invests] primarily in very short-term, corporate, and mortgage- and asset-backed bonds. The fund invests primarily in higher- and medium-quality bonds. To enhance its return potential, the fund also invests a portion of its assets in bonds that have longer maturities or are of lower-quality (high-yield or junk bonds), though it may not invest in bonds rated below BB. The managers focus upon high-yield bonds rated BB with positive or improving credit fundamentals. To help limit changes in share price, the fund's average maturity is usually one year or less. To a limited extent, the fund may also invest in foreign securities.

Not exactly what one would look for in a cash-ish fund. Yet it outperformed MMFs in 8 of the 10 years between 1991 and 2000, by as much as 5.4% and never underperformed by more than 0.5% (all from prospectus).
In the early 2000s its risks became apparent, as it underperformed its peers by 1-2% in 2002 and even lost 0.73% in 1Q2002. But it still made 0.83% for the year. The point is that funds that are not good for day-to-day cash can still be good for cash investments. (FYI: Strong Advantage was renamed Strong Ultra-Short in this period.)
Talk about picture perfect. https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?PAAA
@Junkster is being a little selective here. As this PGIM piece says in its title, Not All CLO ETFs are created equal. PGIM says that its fund holds all AAA tranche CLOs, while others may not. M* does show JAAA holding some AAs, which adds volatility. That's okay, it's not much (PV, over PAAA's short life gives 0.5 volatility vs. 0.6 for JAAA.)

"I do not currently have a single Agency bond as every one of them I bought got called."
"[A]gree, agency bonds never seem to get past the first call date for me . . ."
While that has been our collective experience, there is a non-zero probability that Agencies may not be called sometime in the future. I say this because some investors outside this forum have bet $Bs against long term bonds (or they are long interest rates).
I am asking myself, "if I would be OK if the bonds I am buying never get called?"
A corollary thought is, "Am I better off with an Agency that presumably gives me only a six month call protection than a corporate bond that might give me a longer period of call protection but of lower credit quality?"
Many factors go into answering these questions and every investor's situation is different from the next one.
In the few times I looked in the past couple of years, I have not seen a new issue Agency with a year or more call date. What is your experience? May be share when you see one.
Edit: Currently, there is a new issue single "A" corporate (Prudential Financial), non-callable, 5Yr, yielding 10 bps more than Treasuries. That is a scary spread.

@Hank, I held it for the last year but sold it recently. The HY spread plunged to near record lows back in early August, and JAAA responded poorly, briefly. (The spread quickly trended back down again afterwards.) I took JAAA's response to the spike as an indication of underlying risk.
It might be fine for some time longer, but the spread's been this low only a couple of times before, one of them being right before the Great Recession, when it spiked up from ~2.5 to ~20.
Again, the income side looks good, but I wouldn't think of it as a cash sub. Ultra short duration etf's I own right now are USFR, MINT, and VRIG. I think any of those, and others, are closer to being cash subs than JAAA.
On the FRED chart, choose maximum as the time frame to see what I meant above about the record spread lows.
Edit: msf makes a good case for PAAA just below. From a quick M* chart comparison, it's competitive with JAAA return recently.

Comparisons are what software tools are for.
Build a M* portfolio with $10,000 worth of PRWCX and around $6,000 worth of TCAF. That is to account for the fact that only about 60% of PRWCX is in equity. So $6K of equity in this portfolio comes from PRWCX and $6K from TCAF.
Run X-ray and look at stock intersections.
There's an old saying: Give a man a fish ... If you want to know more about how these funds match up, go fish.

More on traveler credit cards (NYTimes, Nov 15th) along with the comments I posted
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/15/travel/choosing-the-best-travel-credit-card.html:
https://www.nytimes.com/shared/comment/439grp?rsrc=cshare&smid=url-share
Some places may not accept both Visa and MC. Costco is well known for taking only Visa, but this is also important when traveling. My tour company writes of Argentina:

Visa is commonly accepted, but MasterCard and American Express are not. In November 2022, the government of Argentina added a new financial exchange rate (known as “Dólar MEP” or “Mercado Electronico de Pagos”) for all travelers paying with credit cards issued outside of Argentina. This new exchange rate is higher than the official dollar, but is more convenient for travelers. It is essentially a tax on credit card use for travelers. We recommend that instead, you visit an exchange house with your Trip Experience Leader as dollars are appreciated and you will likely get a better exchange rate than paying with card

(I'm still trying to figure out Argentina pesos exchanges and rates:
https://solsalute.com/blog/money-in-argentina-currency-exchange/)