XLK vs GLD ETF Comparison
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF vs SPDR Gold Shares
GLD leads
GLD leads by 1 AIQ points, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 0 of 3 evidence groups support GLD, and its lead is narrowing.
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
SPDR Gold Shares
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GLD over XLK, 57 versus 56 as of Sep 2, 2026. GLD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GLD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. GLD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF and SPDR Gold Shares across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
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.
- Risk Resilience15%60 vs 47XLK +13
- Momentum25%54 vs 45XLK +9
- Quality30%74 vs 72Even
0 of 3 evidence groups favor GLD. Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -13
No new signals fired.
GLD's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLK and GLD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GLD (SPDR Gold Shares): the stronger current systematic profile.
XLK (State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, technicals.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
GLDGLD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
XLKXLK on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
XLKXLK on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | XLK | GLD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.4% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $121.4B | $152.9B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 73 | 0 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,005,380 | 6,115,028 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 29.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -26.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.26 | 0.77 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.75 | 0.71 | 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.
Weighted holdings overlap is not available for this pair. Sector exposure above is a related but different measure — it says how much of each fund sits in the same parts of the market, not how much of the same securities they hold.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
0 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GLD. 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 | 56 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day 0.4% vs 3.7%; vs 200-day 15% vs -4.4% |
| Risk Resilience | XLK | Risk Resilience 60 vs 47 |
| 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 XLK and GLD 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 GLD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1GLD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GLD +1
- 56 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- GLD +15
- 57 vs 72
- 30 sessions ago
- GLD +14
- 58 vs 72
- 90 sessions ago
- XLK +3
- 51 vs 48
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Apr 21 when XLK moved ahead of GLD.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.27%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.31%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
XLK is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.23%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.07%, AIQ -5 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.
- 1XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 2GLD starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 3The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 13 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate GLD's advantage entirely.
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.
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | XLK | GLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.9 | 45.1 |
| ADX (14) | 12.3 | 26.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.4% | 3.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15% | -4.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21% | 30.4% |
Risk
XLK is the more resilient| Metric | XLK | GLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.75 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.26 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.96 | 0.93 |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -26.4% |
| Current drawdown | -7.3% | -20% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 29.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, XLK or GLD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GLD is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 57 against XLK's 56. The edge comes from its factor profile. XLK is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is XLK or GLD the better buy right now?
GLD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 0 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GLD over XLK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. XLK leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; XLK leads Momentum by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, XLK or GLD?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, XLK or GLD?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, XLK or GLD?
XLK on the Momentum factor, by 9 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, XLK or GLD?
XLK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLK on Risk Resilience, by 13 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is XLK more profitable than GLD?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is GLD's lead over XLK getting stronger or weaker?
GLD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-04-21, when XLK moved ahead of GLD.
What would change the XLK vs GLD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; GLD starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 13 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate GLD's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about XLK and GLD?
XLK: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. GLD: 0 bullish / 2 bearish. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on XLK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GLD it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare XLK and GLD with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.