How does the $6 billion AUM in JMBS compare to its largest competitors like iShares, BlackRock or Vanguard MBS ETFs? | JHG (Aug 07, 2025) | Candlesense
JHG

How does the $6 billion AUM in JMBS compare to its largest competitors like iShares, BlackRock or Vanguard MBS ETFs?

Short answer

  • Janus Henderson JMBS – just over $6 billion in AUM (the largest actively‑managed MBS ETF).
  • iShares (BlackRock) MBS ETF (ticker ICF) – roughly $10‑11 billion in AUM (the biggest passively‑managed* MBS ETF in the market).
  • Vanguard Mortgage‑Backed Securities ETF (VMBS) – about $5‑5.5 billion in AUM.

So, JMBS sits between the two main passive players: it trails iShares/BlackRock by about $4–5 billion, but it is larger than Vanguard’s offering by roughly $0.5–1 billion.

1. Context from the news

  • Launch date: JMBS was launched in November 2023.
  • Growth: It has reached $6 billion in assets in less than two years, making it the largest actively‑managed mortgage‑backed‑securities ETF.
  • Janus Henderson’s broader ETF platform: The Janus Henderson Securitized Income ETF (JSI) also hit $1 billion AUM, underscoring the firm’s rapid expansion in the securitized‑income space.

2. How JMBS compares to the biggest competitors

ETF (Provider) Ticker Management style Approx. AUM (2025) Relative size vs. JMBS
Janus Henderson JMBS JMBS Actively managed $6 billion – (benchmark)
iShares (BlackRock) MBS ICF Passively (index‑tracked) $10‑11 billion ~$4‑5 billion larger
Vanguard Mortgage‑Backed Securities VMBS Passively (index‑tracked) $5‑5.5 billion ~$0.5‑1 billion smaller

Key take‑aways

  1. iShares/BlackRock still dominates the MBS space in sheer AUM, thanks to its long‑standing, low‑expense‑ratio index product and deep distribution network.
  2. Vanguard’s VMBS is the closest passive rival in size, but JMBS already eclipses it despite being an active strategy.
  3. JMBS’ $6 billion is a remarkable milestone for an active fund—most active MBS managers have historically struggled to break the $1‑2 billion barrier. Its rapid climb signals strong investor appetite for active credit‑selection and yield‑enhancement within the MBS universe.

3. Why the comparison matters

Factor Janus Henderson JMBS iShares/BlackRock ICF Vanguard VMBS
Management style Active (security‑selection, duration management, credit‑quality tilting) Passive (tracks Bloomberg U.S. MBS Index) Passive (tracks Bloomberg U.S. MBS Index)
Expense ratio Typically higher (≈ 0.30‑0.35 % net) to cover active research & trading Lower (≈ 0.15 % net) Lower (≈ 0.12‑0.15 % net)
Liquidity Growing, but still behind the most‑traded passive ETFs (iShares ICF sees > 1 M shares daily) Very high, daily volume in the high‑hundreds‑thousands of shares High, though a touch lower than iShares
Performance profile Potential for “active return” (credit spread capture, yield‑curve positioning) especially in a volatile rate‑environment Replicates index return; performance mirrors the Bloomberg MBS index Same as iShares, but with Vanguard’s cost‑efficiency focus
Investor appeal Attractive for yield‑seeking, “active‑alpha” investors who want exposure to the MBS market beyond a pure index Preferred by cost‑conscious, index‑fund investors Similar to iShares, but Vanguard’s brand draws institutional and retail investors seeking low‑cost exposure

4. Outlook & strategic implications

  1. Growth trajectory: If JMBS continues its current pace (≈ $3 billion per year), it could reach $9‑10 billion by 2027, narrowing the gap with iShares.
  2. Market differentiation: Janus Henderson’s active approach is its primary differentiator. In a market where interest‑rate cycles and credit‑quality shifts are frequent, an active manager can adjust duration, sector exposure, and credit‑risk weighting more nimbly than a passive index fund.
  3. Competitive pressure: As JMBS scales, it may attract more institutional capital (pension funds, insurance companies) that traditionally favor larger, more liquid ETFs. This could force iShares and Vanguard to enhance their own active‑management capabilities (e.g., adding “smart‑beta” overlays) to retain market share.
  4. Fee dynamics: While JMBS’ expense ratio is higher, the potential for higher net returns (through active credit‑selection) can justify the cost for many yield‑focused investors. If performance remains strong, the fund could defend its fee level even as the passive peers push the industry toward ever‑lower costs.

Bottom line

  • JMBS’ $6 billion AUM places it solidly in the top tier of MBS ETFs, outpacing Vanguard’s passive offering and trailing iShares/BlackRock by a modest margin.
  • Its active management model is the key differentiator, and the rapid asset growth suggests that investors are rewarding that model despite the higher expense ratio.
  • iShares (BlackRock) still leads in sheer size, but Janus Henderson is closing the gap fast enough to be taken seriously as a major competitor in the mortgage‑backed‑securities ETF space.

Other Questions About This News

Could the growth in JSI/ JMBS trigger any regulatory scrutiny or impact underwriting capacity? How does JSI's rapid asset growth compare to other securitized or MBS-focused ETFs in the market? How does the performance (total return, volatility) of JSI and JMBS compare to benchmark indices and other active MBS ETFs? How might the $1 billion AUM milestone for JSI affect Janus Henderson's stock price and valuation multiples? How much of Janus Henderson's overall revenue (and fee income) will be driven by the $1 billion and $6 billion AUM in JSI and JMBS respectively? Is there any anticipated change in the ETF’s dividend distribution policy as AUM grows? What are the potential risks (interest‑rate, credit, pre‑payment) that could affect JSI’s future performance? What have been the net inflow trends for JSI and JMBS since launch, and are they sustaining? What is the average yield and credit quality composition of the JSI portfolio? What is the expense ratio of JSI and how does it compare to its peers? What is the liquidity profile of JSI now that it has crossed $1 billion AUM – bid‑ask spreads, market depth? Which institutional or retail investors are the primary supporters of JSI and JMBS and could they shift allocations? Will the success of JSI lead to further product launches or expansions in Janus Henderson's ETF lineup? How might the increased AUM affect the fund’s capacity to maintain its investment strategy and risk controls?