FTEC vs XME: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
FTEC and XME are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. FTEC is Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF, while XME is State Street SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF. FTEC is broader by holdings count, with 296 positions versus 41 for XME. FTEC is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XME ahead on AIQ Score, 51 versus 48.
What is the main difference between FTEC and XME?
FTEC holds 296 positions to XME's 41, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | FTEC | XME |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 296 | 41 |
| Top-10 concentration | 63.7% | 46.8% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.38% | 0.34% |
| Average volume | 272,225 | 1,832,856 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +27.8% | +1.5% |
| YTD return | +31.2% | -2.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +18.9% | +19.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 25% | 37.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.4% | -27.7% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35% | -37.3% |
| Beta | 1.71 | 1.85 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.85 | 0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.33 | 0.26 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 48/100 | 51/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 52/100 | 36/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 60/100 | 46/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF
XME leads
XME leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from FTEC.
Fragile: 0 of 3 evidence groups support XME, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF
State Street SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XME over FTEC, 51 versus 48 as of Oct 31, 2026. XME's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while FTEC holds the stronger momentum profile. XME also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 3 covered evidence groups favor XME today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. XME lead: Reversed — FTEC led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XME now leads by 3.
Compare Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF and State Street SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
FTEC vs XME: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | FTEC | XME | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.35% | FTEC |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 296 | 41 | FTEC |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 63.7% | 46.8% | XME |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.38% | 0.34% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35% | -37.3% | FTEC |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 25% | 37.4% | FTEC |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare FTEC and XME against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum52 vs 36FTEC +16
- Risk Resilience60 vs 46FTEC +14
- Quality55 vs 67XME +12
0 of 3 evidence groups favor XME. XME’s edge is concentrated in quality; FTEC keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
XME's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FTEC and XME both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XME (State Street SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
FTEC (Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, technicals.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | FTEC | XME | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 296 | 41 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 272,225 | 1,832,856 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 25% | 37.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.4% | -27.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.85 | 0.16 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.71 | 1.85 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
FTEC and XME share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
292 holdings are unique to FTEC, and 39 holdings are unique to XME. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
FTEC is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 63.73% of the fund, against 46.84% for XME (296 holdings vs 41). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
What FTEC adds that XME doesn’t
| Holding | FTEC | XME |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 17.69% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 16.43% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 11.28% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.44% | Not held |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | 4.31% | Not held |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC | 3.2% | Not held |
What XME adds that FTEC doesn’t
| Holding | XME | FTEC |
|---|---|---|
| HLHECLA MINING CO | 5.58% | Not held |
| NEMNEWMONT CORP | 5.33% | Not held |
| CDECOEUR MINING INC | 5.17% | Not held |
| RGLDROYAL GOLD INC | 5.05% | Not held |
| UECURANIUM ENERGY CORP | 4.58% | Not held |
| FCXFREEPORT MCMORAN INC | 4.49% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
0 of 3 covered evidence groups favor XME. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 48 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | FTEC | Price vs 50-day -4.5% vs -10.5%; vs 200-day 13.2% vs -10.7% |
| Risk Resilience | FTEC | Risk Resilience 60 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FTEC and XME and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on XME.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28XME lead: Reversed — FTEC led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XME now leads by 3.
- Today
- XME +3
- 48 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- XME +5
- 42 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- FTEC +6
- 56 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- XME +16
- 47 vs 63
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 18 when FTEC moved ahead of XME.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only FTEC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.17%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only XME
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.78%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
XME leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -4.35%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3.2%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1FTEC closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to XME's edge.
- 2FTEC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3XME's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
FTEC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FTEC | XME |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1% | 0% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.7% | -2.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.8% | -0.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.7% | -11.6% |
| Year to date | 31.2% | -2.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 27.8% | 1.5% |
Technicals
FTEC has the stronger structure| Metric | FTEC | XME |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.6 | 42.9 |
| ADX (14) | 24 | 26.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.5% | -10.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.2% | -10.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24% | 33.5% |
Risk
FTEC is the more resilient| Metric | FTEC | XME |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.71 | 1.85 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.85 | 0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.33 | 0.26 |
| Max drawdown | -16.4% | -27.7% |
| Current drawdown | -4.9% | -23.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 25% | 37.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between FTEC and XME?
FTEC holds 296 positions to XME's 41, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do FTEC and XME overlap?
FTEC and XME share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 292 holdings are unique to FTEC, and 39 holdings are unique to XME. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, FTEC or XME?
FTEC holds more positions: 296 versus 41 for XME.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
FTEC has the lower expense ratio, 0.08% a year against 0.35% for XME.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.38% for FTEC and 0.34% for XME.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XME has been more volatile over the past year, at 37.4% annualized against 25% for FTEC.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
FTEC fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -35% against -37.3% for XME.
Compare FTEC and XME with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.